Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

I am in the process of building a system. I have 2 IBCs. See Diagram



I am considering a simpler system but I would have to build a high platform for my growbeds. See Diagram 2.



Which design would be best in the long run? In about a month, I should be receiving 2 more IBCs.


I plan on finishing this system within a few days. I already have 1 IBC cut.

First time I tried images. hope I did them right

Here are a couple of early pictures. I am just experimenting with placement right now

Pumping from one Ft and returning to the other (interconnected) is a good common design. If you put a screen on the connection between the 2 FT's you can run 2 seperate varieties of fish.

IMO... interconnecting tanks.... is often not a good design... especially if you want to run 2 seperate varieties of fish...

Just have two seperate systems....

Why is that Rupe? Is it because of the risk of spreading diseases?

When I expanded my first IBC system a basically duplicated my first and ran them seperately so they were independant of each other and if any problems occured it was isolated to one system... which was good. But, there is the added cost of another pump and not everyone is in position to do so and I think the greater percentage of members start a home made system to keep costs at a minimum.

The proposed system above, with proper care in design is just as good as the next. There are hundreds of systems like this and they run fine.

Right now I only have one pump and I am currently only planning to run catfish.


I do have a question. If you bury 2/3 of an IBC tank do you need to bury the metal support as well or will the packed dirt support it?

Disease issues, flow rates, blockages... are potential issues...

Sure it's possible to design to avoid most of the issues...

But if the intention of having two tanks is to increase the fish stocking... you have to increase the filtration capacity accordingly... for most this probably means more grow beds.. for some, external filtration....

For simplicity... and flexibility... especially with two different, or seasonal species... I just think it's better to run two systems...

The cost of an extra pump... isn't probably much greater than incorporating external filtration, and/or a bigger sump....

And the cost of the extra plumbing isn't much different between running two seperate systems... and adding extra media beds in a co-joined system anyway...

Not really sure that there are "hundreds of systems" Charlie...

Each to their own....

In the posters case... having the extra tank... co-joined... isn't going to allow any increased stocking level... with two half/third grow beds...

The main reason for the interconnected tank is simplicity, but I wonder if I wouldn't be better off with the first system in the long run. It would be more work and I would have to buy a bulkhead fitting.

I guess, I could even go simpler and have 3 growbeds and one 200 gal. fish tank.

Diseases, flow rates and blockages could be a problem in any system design Rupe and thats why correct design and regular maintenance should come with all systems.

It was never mentioned by the OP that the extra fish tank was intended for 'increased stocking' and whether you interconnect the systems or run them seperately I cant see the issue with using the 2 FT's for species seperation whilst interconnected.

I agree that 2 seperate systems are a 'better' option and that is why I went that way...for overall system stability. But, the proposed system design is still a good, common design and I see no great issues with it... and its less one pump and electrical costs that go with it.... which not everyone is able to do.

There are a lot of systems set up this way but if you want to carry on about it and try and put me in my place and run down my suggestion, as you commonly do with others...... go for it, because I dont really care.

The only thing I would be worried with 2x FT connected together is solids build up in the first tank. Unless you have a SLO from the first FT dumping into the second FT? Then again I really don't like that idea. Once removed the solids would have to go to some sort of filtration (GB, Swirl, etc) IMHO. Thats how I would like it.

Two different types of fish in one system sounds good to me. I understand there might be a problem with diseases, but my understanding of AP is that you are trying to get two or more farms (Fish with Veggies/Fruit/etc) to work together. I'm kinda an idealist but thats how I understand AP or at least thats my goal. Get everything to work to benefit each other.

Swordvisions, if I were you I would do what you would think would work best. It seems the majority of problems in AP seem to be fairly easy to fix (maybe with a little bit of creativity) but most likely it won't kill the whole system. Don't be afraid to experiment. I know I'm always looking for new ideas.

I've got my system setup with a 1000L FT to 3 x GBs to 600L FT which SLOs back to the starting 1000L FT.

I can add an extra pump to the 600LT and run it as a standalone system (with a few minor plumbing changes). I do this when I want to run a quarantine system.

However, once quarantined, I join the systems and use just the one pump. This saves a fair bit on electricity and also goes some way to keep the overall system temp more stable. Last night was a cold night (10 degs) and I was glad to have the 2 systems coupled so I could keep the temp up (small tank would have cooled quicker).

I think 2 separate systems are better on the whole, though it does come down to what materials are available. If I was to build my system from scratch I'd do it differently, though using the materials at hand and minimising energy usage were a high priority due to a focus on sustainability, so given the same materials I'd do it the same (though with the GBs in a different position!)

I think the decision which way you design comes down to priorities to some extent... and don't forget future expansion!!!!!

No arguement on the latter point Charlie.. or that an inter-connected tanks can't be designed to address the potential issues...

I merely raised the point that there could be... potential issues...

And then addressed the reasons for why do so??


The OP didn't mention stocking 2 species either...

And I'm not saying that you can't run two species... with inter-connected tanks....I just said that IMO... there was no real benefit in inter-connected the tanks if the OP wanted to do so....

And gave reasons... seasonality, disease etc etc.... for keeping them seperate...

As I said... stocking level is still going to be determined by the amount of filtration (surely you wouldn't disagree)....

And if the OP wanted two species... while inter-connecting the tanks... each species would be limited as such... i.e... half the number of the overall stocking capacity... in each tank...

Yes, you could co-habit two species in just one tank... and inter-connect the tanks...

Or even split the total number of the two species... between the inter-connected tanks....

But... for what real purpose... (pump/electricty noted).... water temperature stability... a minor gain in a small system...


Whether or not there's "a lot" of systems... isn't really the point....

And I wasn't trying to "carry on"... "put you in your place"... or run down" your suggestion... (nor do I think I do so to others)....

I just posted my opinion... and reasons... even said ... "each to their own"....

Chill out Charlie... grab a beer...

Ive had a crappy day... I should have spent time on the venting thread.

Venting is always good therapy.... IMO...