Hello Bernie and all,
I just had to chime in with a correction of the underlying metaphor that is being used in these posts. The food chain is a classification scheme of consumers not producers. Different animals are at their position in the food chain because of what they consume; the bottom being herbivores. Herbivores are at the bottom because they eat vegetation which is full of fiber and not much protein. Herbivores fix their largely carbohydrate diets into proteins. As you proceed up (though the direction is debatable) the food chain, to the carnivores (big cats, wolves, etc.) they consume primarily high protein food sources, though many of them will occasionally eat vegetation.

In that view of the metaphor, libraries cannot be placed on the "bottom of the food chain" because they store information to be consumed and do not consume.

In the analogy being used it sounds like Google is the top source of information as Scott Barker clearly pointed out. But this is not the top of the food chain. Wolves and big cats are not hunted by anything except humans.

Where libraries exist on the producer/storer continuum is still an open and interesting question. Are we the grassy plains feeding the herbivores? Or are we the herbivores with fixed protein feeding the big cats?