"Aquaponics Without a Pump"

Oh dear Morgan Freedman here we go again.  Once again the people who didn't read the damned "manual" are trying to "think outside the box and damned be to your scientific reasoning!" Recently this pushed a now ELEVEN PAGE LONG discussion on it, the last six of which has been me futilely arguing with basically one guy--then making snarky comments because it's fun. I actually want to see what you come up with, by the way. It's an engineering problem that's damn near impossible, but I believe in people with way too much spare time. Also other people are adding to the discussion. Weird. All that aside, here's the opening statement of the thread:

"I'm throwing this out there for discussion, spawned by a recent blog, but something on my mind since first being interested in AP.  NO PUMPS. Can it happen, and how?
Why? Well, 'cause if we didn't need pumps or electricity we probably wouldn't use them, and AP might truly join the ranks as a sustainable food production method, and applicable to feeding the poor, saving the world, yada yada...and at the heart of it all, I'm cheap and lazy. I find personal victory in reaching the end goal faster, smarter, easier, cheaper than "how it normally done".
The only thing that comes to mind is a wicking bed of some sort. And I need to consult my book of wild ideas before I open my mouth.
Now I won't be a stickler about including some pumps using waste energy, or some low-tech mechanics, or human power, but try to avoid solar PV and windmill electricity (not that they are not excellent, but they are being done and discussed elsewhere).
link to blog: http://community.theaquaponicsource.com/profiles/blogs/a-no-pump-sy...

Pics, sketches, links, etc are always nice. Happy brainstorming" --Jon Par 

Uh... sure? Well, aquaponics isn't necessarily defined by the use of a pump, so sure. It is generally accepted that it should be recirculating--which really, really does necessitate a pump, but for the sake of discussion let's pretend I didn't say that. (AUTHORS NOTE: Bob Marley's "I Shot the Sherrif" started playing right as I wrote that.Coincidence? I think not.) Anyway, let's consider our options:

1. "What the hell is this drivel?" That's not an option. 
2. "No seriously..." if you're not going to brainstorm nicely, then please go. 
3. "But.." NOW. Don't worry, I won't break the laws of thermodynamics. 
4. "Mechanically push water using animal/human/air/steam power" Ooh! Sounds interesting. One possible ways is to hook your bicycle to an Archimedes' Screw--as suggested by the troll currently known as  KlaHaYa Gardens. Theoretically that sounds cool. The problem? That's a lot of freaking biking. Are you paying someone to do it for you? Child labor during the summer? Staying at home? Well, I have sad news, from a purely thermodynamics perspective--HOLY HELL THAT'S A TERRIBLE DEAL! You cannot possibly regain even .1% of that energy from the system. You probably won't need a gym membership anymore, but it won't save enough money if you're constantly eating. Plus, who's going to bike at three in the morning? Not me. Well, alright, what if we decide to torture the fish a little by giving them low circulation. NO! THAT IS SO FUCKING UNETHICAL, NO, I WON'T LET YOU! NO, NO FUCKING WAY! Well, that escalated quickly. Anyway, we can't shaft the fish. Heh, pun. So, what if you use steam instead? Uh, how are you creating all that steam? Solar water heater in Arizona? Perfect. You engineer something with a lower failure rate than a standard pump, I'm wisely shying away from that challenge. Next! 
5. What if you, like, put it on a see-saw, bro? No, that seriously hurts the fish. There is no way you can efficiently run this, if done correctly. Using steam/hydraulics would work, but I am constraining you to moving the sump tank around--the fish tank is staying level goddamnit! NEXT! 
6. Fuck it. Let's just do permaculture. This is my favorite, possibly because I suggested it, and more likely because it's the one that actually makes any freaking sense to me. I'm too lazy to reiterate, so here's me quoting myself for the first and last time: 

"Anyway, tinfoil hats aside, permaculture may hold the answer to this question. I remember reading a book by a Aus. Permaculturalist who built a giant pond, and put some trout in it. The pond was in her modest yard, and wasn't that enormous, either. Through diffusion, or osmosis, whatever, it would water some water-intensive trees, most of them tropical. Then, she had semi-aquatic plants for filtration. This is a traditional pond set-up, with some added temperate tree benefit. 

The way to improve on this is to remember that the Chinese already figured this out (or the Aztecs, whichever design you want). When we first learned about hydroponics or aquaponics we get the "ancients are all knowing" or "ancient technology is analogous" bit from websites (or at least I did). The Chinese used a available source of water to irrigate crops in the Southern part where this normally took place. This would create a pond for growing rice (a rice paddy). Some guy figured if you put carp in it you could get two crops out of one. So, they did. The practice spread throughout Southeast Asia.  So, you could think about re-engineering rice paddies with other crops. This practice is, still, very common. 

The Aztec method, however, is more familiar and simpler. Make a floating raft bed. What they did was ingenious. Banished by the dominant civilization to the swampy islands of Lake Texcoco (now Mexico City) they had to find a good food system. So, they gathered reeds by the shore and put the lake bottom onto it. Then, they put it out onto Lake Texcoco. So, you could just replicate this with Styrofoam, or reeds, and use net pots (yogurt cups) in your own backyard. Now, this isn't aquaponics. This is pond culture. You should always keep the stocking densities low, and I suggest using the dual root zone method with the plant, to keep nutrients at a good level.

Another idea is, well, similar to the one above, except it is a smaller, contained system. The now gone New Alchemy Institute had various ideas about greenhouse pond culture. Most of the experiments failed. But, the idea is like the one above, but aquaponics sized. The way I would think it would work is if there is a polyculture to break down solids, and a large surface area to tank volume ratio. I could see catfish and shrimp, or the like, eating from the same waster streams. Basically, you feed the catfish, and the shrimp (but less) and the shrimp will subsist mostly on algae and catfish "by-products". This could be further broken down by bacterial action, and the occasional clean every so often, to prevent solids coating on the roots. 

Anyway, I hope this discussion comes to a theoretical conclusion and a test, or just a test. I love empirical data. I hope to see some!"

 Wow, I sounded so annoying one year ago, seriously. Oh, anyway, back to what I was supposedly talking about. You should do this because I really want to see someone do that. Okay, maybe a different reason, um, nope. So, uh, see any good documentaries lately? Oh, wait, this isn't aquaponics. NEXT!
     
        7. That's all that's reasonably been suggested.
Well, I suppose we should just use a freaking pump and if we want to have a minimal impact, let's use micro-generated electricity for it. There, problem solved. Problem solved. PROBLEM SOLVED! Alternates will be accepted once proven. Good luck!