Yes We Have No Bananas

(4 pm. – promoted by ek hornbeck)

Fresh vegetables via AFP

Fish and vegetables grow without soil on Gaza rooftops

By Agence France-Presse

Friday, October 26, 2012 22:30 EDT

Abu Ahmed looks out over a sea of grey, empty Gaza rooftops, and smiles as he looks back at the lush greenery sprouting in tubs and pipes on top of his apartment building.

He is part of a United Nations agency project to introduce cutting-edge urban agriculture to Gaza City, teaching Palestinians to farm without soil in the space available to them in one of the world’s most densely populated places…


Skip to comment form

  1. BobbyK

    I wonder what the fish shit would do to THC levels though. Would it be really good shit?

  2. terryhallinan

    I was just beginning some thoughts and meant to save a draft but this garden and synergistic fish farm in Gaza was astonishing to me.

    Calgary, Canada, is fighting rooftop farming that is being established in Vancouver as well as various locations in the U.S. because they are afraid roofs might fall in or something.

    The title refers to the mutant interspecies sterile hybrids, bananas, that any good organic farmer knows should be banned or at least labeled as GMO’s.

    Not everybody agrees with me (LOL!) that organic produce is a marketing tool of little merit that actually increases global warming and even chemical use in some instances.

    Thank you for your comments.

    Best,  Terry

  3. banger

    Yes, it is a marketing tool but that’s the world we live in. Organic farming is an attempt to rethink food and the growing of food in such a way that it is not dominated by industrial farming which exists only to make short term profits and keep real costs hidden. Rooftop farming and hydroponics are all good things–the closer we get to food production the better, not just for the earth but our own consciousness. We are far too removed from natural processes so is it any surprise that we virtually don’t believe in their existence? So few people notice the natural world around us and within us.  

  4. terryhallinan

    Please forgive the brutality of the question, if you can, but when I try to reason I am usually hammered with being an agent of the devil Monsanto.

    I am not, not, not any kind of admirer of a corporation that adds poisons to the pile.

    Even Monsanto has licensed science that might do away with pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, irrigation and grow bountiful crops without plowing on marginal land with improved seed that is, coincidentally, not cross-species.

    But Monsanto rather prefers to protect its poisons and add some more with its BT corn.

    That doesn’t seem good to me.

    Imagine growing tomatoes utilizing the stench of pig farming through use of air filters trapping nutrients and coincidentally odors.  For example, see


    There is really no need to abuse the pigs in cramped quarters but there is need to house them inside.  Is that abuse you think?

    Aside from the chef who puts wild boar and other invasive species on the menu, I am hard pressed to think of many  ways more beneficial to the environment nor more damaging than using vast tracts of land and valuable resources for high-priced crops that starve the peasants.


    I have no doubt BTW of the good intentions and intrinsic decency of most of those proferring organic farming.  I am less enthused by certain moneybags taking advantage of the new rage.

    Best,  Terry  

  5. banger

    Again, I think science is the way to go towards producing  a healthier and more sustainable food supply. And, yes, there is a tendency for organic farmers to meet the needs of the marketplace–what else can they do? Is organic farming more wasteful of resources? You haven’t made any kind of case for that–but let’s assume that it is so–then what?

    The fact of the matter with Monsanto or anyone else is that we have a problem of class-struggle. Rich oligarchs want to maintain the status-quo at all costs and eliminate alternative possibilities wherever they spring up whether it’s farming or health-care or energy. The question is not what techniques we use but whether or not the population understands who the enemy is. Only when we start to limit (we can never eliminate it) the forces against creativity, innovation and rationality, i.e., the patrician class, can we strike a better balance.  

  6. terryhallinan

    I see you are a most rational person open to reason.

    Is organic farming more wasteful of resources? You haven’t made any kind of case for that–but let’s assume that it is so–then what?

    I will give you my own perspective and maybe we can let it go.

    Even TreeHugger posted evidence that organic milk puts more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and then deleted it with apologies and corrections.  I think the evidence is overwhelming but with a finagling you can prove there is no global warming, the earth is flat, etc.  In fact I spent much of my life making the earth flat.  Not easy but I was a cartographer.

    I grew up on open range country.  Cows and horses and sheep shit on the ground and fooped and belched into the atmosphere and ate what they wanted and always had the right of way if they weren’t eaten themselves.  They had a good life mostly though suffering the usual hurt from predators, cars, insects, diseases, poisonous food, etc.

    The Stone Barn Castle in Oneida was much nicer.  The floors were clean as the shit was swept away, keepers and milkers wore white uniforms like doctors, shipped milk to NY City and was overall an absolute marvel for its time circa 1920.

    Today cows can even milk themselves, anaerobic digesters do not need to let the volatiles escape into the atmosphere, the cows are protected from predators including people.  In Pig City, even the foops and belched gases are filtered and used for fertilizer.

    In our overgrazed desert junipers came down off the mountain crags and became an odd invasive species.  The geese went away.  Lakes dried up.  Irrigation added to an ecological disaster.  Finally most of the people went away.

    Then the geese came back and the desert has come a long way back and I suspect the new Mormon settlers, who have reopened the schools, are better at husbandry but probably not as good as the pioneers that built the Stone Barn Castle that foreshadowed a modern new way.

    Using vast tracts of land for farming crowds out wildlife.  Careless engineering of farming does enormous hurt.  

    I could go on endlessly but I think I have already blathered on far too long.

    Take care, my friend.

    Best,  Terry

  7. banger

    I was visualizing what you wrote. Argument, as I see it, is or should be dialectic. Another way of looking at it is that it can be a dance of ideas—one person makes a gesture the other reacts to it but always keeping the engagement there–much like making music together or jamming. You do a beat or phrase and each musician leads the other in turn, sometimes in stark contrast but always returning to something. Some music descends into endless complexity before the theme or the beat or the key comes back in harmony and the matter is resolved. It is about intention, in short. Argument is now thought of as a fight where one side wins the other loses–that is something utterly foreign to me.

    I hunger for knowledge and engagement and find that is very rare these days anywhere.  

Leave a Reply