> The most obvious is that we are dealing with an insect on one hand and a
> plant on the other. Bees emit CO2 and sugar cane takes it in. Lots of it.

Carbon footprint relates to fossil fuel usage or the permanent 
release of CO2 from Natrual systems (e.g. burning the Amazon forest) 
or the permanent sequestering of CO2 (eg plant forests that will 
never be removed). 

So the issue is tracking *fossil fuel* usage in these industries.  

Beekeeping is mostly transport fuels and usage of sugar with its 
inbuilt carbon footprint.

Sugar is cultivation fuels and fertilizer.  Becasuse it is intensive 
agriculture, urea is used extensively.  Natural gas is the prime 
fossil fuel used to "fix" nitrogen.  Rotating legumes is more 
environmentally friendly but lowers crop output
.
Sugar cane might take up lots of carbon, but that is all release back 
by the time the cane is burnt (for fuel) and the sugar is consumed. 
There is no permanent uptake of carbon in this system.

Regards,
Peter Bray_________________________________________________________
Airborne Honey Ltd., Pennington St, PO Box 28, Leeston, 
New Zealand Fax 64-3-324-3236,  Phone 64-3-324-3569  
http://www.airborne.co.nz  [log in to unmask]

******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at:          *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm  *
******************************************************