The mother pineapple can actually send up a second fruit from... somewhere. It's referred to as a rattoon fruit. I think, so it's not like they die IMMEDIATELY after fruiting. If the fruit you get from a pineapple is small -- like, baseball-sized instead of commercially-grown-pineapple sized -- it might mean the plant is too small when it flowers. I think three feet in diameter is probably the minimum size you can get normalish-sized fruit from, although I've heard some people say they need to be about five feet in diameter. Of course, there are also varieties of pineapple that just stay really tiny. Also if you don't want it to flower and die, you could probably just keep it indoors most of the year. That'll really stunt its growth and it'll take forever to do anything. Keeping it potbound might not work, though. Pineapples are pretty easy and I'm usually terrible with bromeliads. The only big issues are that they're sort of rot prone when not in active growth (they're technically succulents. The thing with epiphytic bromeliads where you fill the cup with water is not really a good idea with pineapples) and they need a lot of fertilizer when they ARE growing because they tend to develop some sort of mineral deficiencies. I think it's iron or something. Or at least mine do. It makes the new growth yellow and really narrow. You'll know it when you see it. Also they can get incredibly sharp.

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.

~lurking~ Would this be for seeds or plants? I have terrible luck with bare root plants. I've killed everyone I've ever gotten! I wouldn't have much to trade as far as plants. I just started Gloriosa daisies, Gaillardia, Coreopsis & English Daisies this year. I only have established NOID black-eyed Susans and Purple Coneflowers. I've been working a little more on my perennials this year. I too love daisy type flowers. Don't mind my ramble! Becky

purpleinopp - Thank you for your time and comments. I have a somewhat different perspective that I would like to share regarding the following thoughts that you expressed. "People don't dig a 2-ft hole and then change their mind and fall back in love with their "weed." I would submit for due consideration that they might if the reason(s) they are / were removing it in the 1st place were based at least partly by a fear of the 'unknown' and so I believe that partially 'unknown' aspect to be relevant and therefore on topic. Observing how the plant was growing in the pasture may have indicated that it was not overly aggressive in growth , but in a garden setting (without any competition from other plants for space, sunlight and nutrients) wild strains may exhibit enhanced growth as compared to how they grow under 'wild' conditions. The way in which this particular vine was growing i.e., very fast and possibly spreading underground by showing up on the distal side of a sidewalk ( the depth and width of which the readers do not yet know) , was inspiring fear in the mind of the gardener due to a certain unfamiliarity in which Ipomoea pandurata usually grows. My personal experience is that I have communicated with others (in the past) who had similar fears regarding Ipomoea pandurata and wanted to remove it ( because they thought it was spreading by underground rhizomes like Calystegia sepium) and after some consideration ultimately decided to allow the plant to remain. The sidewalk may be very shallow (and / or not very wide) , in which case a runner could have traveled under it and come up on the distal side (mimicking Calystegia rhizomes) and this could understandably spark a type of 'panic' because of the reputation of the Calystegia type of bindweeds. The fact that the multiple stems arise from a single large root (which is most definitely designed to withstand hard times and is very difficult to dig out) certainly added to a type of 'bindweed panic'. The additional information provided could have caused a re-consideration of the nature of the plant , allayed any severe fears and the gardener may therefore choose to retain the plant or continue with removal processes however they see most befitting ala their (updated ) perspective. These threads come up on Google and other search engines and (of course I can only speak for myself) but the responses I supply are intended not just for the fleeting moment , but so that others researching the topic may benefit from whatever is shared at some point in the future. Thanks to everyone for sharing their questions , suggestions and experience. regards, Ron