Guthion is another one that will be sorely missed. Cherry growers really don't have much of a backup plan after it's phased out in the next few years. They have a zero tolerance threshold for cherry maggot (due to stringent requirements of exports, as I recall). None of the proposed replacements for Guthion work as effectively. Currently extension personnel are telling cherry growers to find solutions for maggot before Guthion is completely pulled, but are not really telling them how to do it. Growers are essentially left to themselves to try to figure out some spray program that will work with the current insecticides available. Not to be misunderstood, I think the EPA on the whole has done a good job removing older more dangerous chemistries and encouraging newer safer ones. Although I'm not in complete support for the ban on Guthion and Methyl Bromide (given the increased restrictions for its use i.e. increased buffer zones, monitoring of drift, notification of neighbors, etc) what I'm mostly opposed to is the knee-jerk reactions which seem to be taking place with neonicotinoids and the current bee crisis. As far as competitiveness of U.S. ag, the U.S. farmer has been able to compete w/ countries where labor is very cheap. Traditionally this has been done through automation. A combine running through a field at 10 acres/hr. can compete with a Chinaman harvesting the same field, no matter how little he's paid. Some of our crops are still labor intensive (I'm thinking of fruits here) but that is changing. Thinning and harvesting are in the early stages of becoming fully automated. When that happens, cost of labor will no longer be a factor, as is the case currently with field crops. I do think environmental regulation may tip the scale. Not that I'm against regulation, just that we need to recognize there is a fine balance between adequately protecting the environment and rendering our food growing sector non-competitive. Perhaps that sounds like a severe statement, but the uncomfortable truth is that huge yield increases (and thereby the abundant cheap food) we've enjoyed over the last 50 years are largely the result of synthetic fertilizer and effective pesticides. I'm not trying to start an organic vs. conventional debate, just explaining my rationale for claiming environmental regulation can have a pretty big impact. It would be unfortunate if regulation got so aggressive as to take us back to years where pests took a significant percentage of the crop.

I do not want any bees to die off & I love honey. That being said there is a stand in pollinator: The blue orchard bees also do not produce honey, rarely sting and, owing to their solitary nature, do not swarm. They are incredibly efficient pollinators of many tree fruit crops—on a typical acre, 2,000 blue orchard bees can do the work of more than 100,000 honeybees. Their biggest drawback is that beekeepers can only increase their populations by a factor of three to eight each year. (Honey bees can grow from a small colony consisting of a queen and a few dozen workers to a population of 20,000 foragers in a few months.) https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/other-bee-species-subbing-for-honeybees/

Depending on what the finish was before the paint you might be able to break the bond using a steam cleaner. First I would check the finish on the unpainted portions of the door to determine if it's varnish (solvent for that is mineral spirits or turps) or shellac (solvent for that is alcohol). If the wood-colored parts are covered with varnish I think you'll have an easier time breaking the bond. Shellac might be harmed by the steam. And maybe you'll get lucky and have varnish topped with latex paint. That's the easiest pairing to crack. However, depending on how old your house is the wood grain "takes your breath away" may be faux graining, not the actual wood pattern. In my c. 1840 NY house much of my woodwork had this treatment, and has since been painted. I can see where it was done, perhaps as practice, on the back sides of doors. Grain painting present special challenges as the graining may have been done with one medium, then topped by another to protect, maybe not. In historic restoration projects I have read of successful cleaning and restoration of faux grain painting, but I imagine it's very fussy work. And just as aside to anyone playing around with alcohol solvents. I recently acquired several liters of grain alcohol to use in cleaning books and have experimented with it on shellac-finished furniture and been amazed at how easy it is to work with compared to denatured alcohol. I think it is higher proof, so perhaps a more ready solvent. It's not cheap, and hard to find - and may be illegal in some states, but it's worth looking into. I live in NY, and can't buy it here, so I go to Vermont and special-order it at State Liquor Stores. You have to fill out several forms and sign an affadavit that it's not for human consumption (only for scientific, educational or research purposes). I just stated I was using it for cleaning books and antiques and the form came back approved along with my order of the stuff. The clerk in the liquor store said they had had to remove if from sale because college kids were using it to create something called Jello-shots, which sound vile. I don't think that's quite what the intended educational use is, though! Molly~

After you cut off the dead branch (try not to leave a stump), leave the rose alone, except for water, for a few weeks. It may "just sit there" for while, because it will be growing roots under the ground. I would not give it any more food, or spray it with anything - it just needs to recuperate from being planted. Jackie