the oscar debate.

[jetajockey]

Ok so it has been stated that the real issue comes down to water quality and then someone mentioned a sump. I'm very new to the hobby and im keen to get the answer to this as well..... From my understanding adding a sump although doesn't give extra room it gives you an extra body of water to work with. So if you had a 90 gal tank and a 55 sump would that then give you the water volume of 145 which would exceed the minimum 125 recommended?

Makes sense to me.

Also re: the above posts, having great filters doesn't deal with the elephant in the room (nitrates). I think it'd be interesting to have a heavily planted tank with the plants situated in a way that the oscars couldn't get to them also (maybe in the sump or terrestrial plants with the roots being fed in a secure area.)

 

[DragonFish71]

Water quality is ALWAYS the first issue with larger cichlids. The larger the fish, the larger the poo. Same with dogs. Smaller dogs, smaller poop. My GBRs and Bolivians get the same diet as my jack dempseys and firemouths, same feeding schedule. I have to clean my firemouth's and jack's tank every week due to the water quality and I have 2 Fluval 405s and an Ocean Clear canister on the jacks.

And yes, you can somewhat use a human/mammal/fish analogy because it DOES make sense.

Think about size. That ridiculous 1 inch rule, one inch of fish per one gallon of water. So by that "rule" you can take that 10 inch oscar and keep them in a ten gallon tank, going by the "theory". The equivalent would be take an infant human and raise them in a dog kennel to adulthood. Would anyone do that to a child? No (and if they do, they deserve worse than prison, but I digress) Think of how little area that child would have for moving, stretching their legs/arms or sitting. For a fish to be healthy, it needs room to grow, to turn around, to swim and "stretch it's fins" Now add two children to that same kennel, less room right? Two 10 inch fish? Yeah, won't work. Just throw them in a 20g? Um, NO. The foot print of a 90g gives them much more room to turn, spawn, swim and play than a 55 would. The FOOT PRINT makes the difference. Wider front to back, can turn without having to fold themselves, much better for the vertebral skeletal system. When it comes to vertebra and back movement I might as well be an expert, but I won't get into that.

Also territory comes into play. We all know cichlids are territorial, the bigger they get, the more territory then need. The smaller the tank, the worse the battles over territory. The more you risk losing a fish.

And yeah, I've kept and bred large cichlids like HUKIT, managuense cichlids as a matter of fact. They aren't much different in temperament and requirments than oscars. They can be just as mean, nasty and dramatic.

 

[Brox]

Just because lots of people do it doesn't necessarily make it right.

I'm not saying he Should over stock I'm just saying people over stock 55s and 1 Oscar in one shouldn't be that bad

 

[Wyomingite]

That makes no sence. Just because some people do it (its not done ALL the time) does not make it a good reason to put oscars in tanks too small for then to live a good life.

Very true, but the question really comes down to what defines "too small."

Part of the problem IMO lies within oscars themselves. I've had O's that maxed out at 10" SL and others that reached 15"+ SL. This is in the same overfiltered 225 gallon tank with a standard 50%/week water change regimen. As hobbyists, we have no way of knowing the genetics of the fish we purchase and whether that fish is gonna max out at 10" or 16". This is a species which has been line bred, in-bred and randomly bred for decades. Most of the focus for breeding has been toward color, pattern, finnage, or just plain bulk numbers to fuel the market. I don't recall ever reading or hearing of a breeding program focused on increasing size.

I rescued four oscars from 5" to 9" and kept 'em in a 90 gallon tank with two emperor 400s for four months until my 225 was set-up after my last move (it was 'sposed to be a two or three week stay in the 90, but that is another story). I did 50% water changes every day during that time. Not only did they survive, I cleared up severe HLLE on all four and each managed to grow an inch or two. Lookin' back 50% daily was probly a little overkill, as nitrate readings were never over 15 ppm. When two of them paired up in the 225, I kept the pair (at 12" and 13.5") in the 90 for several months with 50% water changes twice a week with no water quality issues. A while back, there was an article in TFH where one of the staff members kept 10 0scars and a Texas cichlid in a 75 gallon tank, did 50% water changes daily, and saw no reduction in growth and no ill-health effects over the test period, which I want to say was 6 months. In reality, there is absolutely no reason the water quality in a 55 gallon tank could not be maintained with one oscar in it with a proper maintenance regimen. Period, regardless of arguments to the contrary. It would depend on how much work the owner was willing to put into it.

A variation of this concept has been used in aquaculture for food fish for decades. A flow though design provides a constant water change, and the containers used for the aquacultured species are stocked beyond anything anyone but a gross tyro would envision in a home aquarium. It is used with various salmonids, tilapiines and even beluga sturgeon. Water quality is the biggest obstacle to acquiring maximum growth in an aquarium. With frequent enough water changes, water quality could be maintained in a 55 without issue. Based on my experience with four oscars in a 90, I suspect it could be done with a 50% water change twice or thrice a week.

Where a 55 falls short is in the physical restraint caused by the tank itself. Tanks used for aquaculture are generally circular and prevent severe physical deformities by allowing constant movement, whereas hobbyists have rectangles that can potentially inhibit proper growth by limiting motion. At 12" wide, a percentage of oscars are going to be able to live comfortably in a 55 gallon tank through their lifespan. The remainder will have problems, from rostral damage to spinal curvature to deformation of internal organs. One of those oscars I mentioned above has severe spinal curvature, his back is a near perfect semi-circle, due to being raised in a narrow tank prior to me getting him. This isn't the first large Central or South American cichlid I've seen with deformities like this over the years. This comes back to the genetics; we don't know how large our oscars have the potential to become when we get them as cute little 2" juvies.

The last is why I recomend a 75 minimum for oscars. Water quality issues can be overcome, genetics can't.

WYite

 

[hpiguy]

see what i mean there is this automatic agro when it come to this topic.....
....but i belive that at his point people are just regurgitating genneral rules that they hear.

if the filtration system and tank maintanace is up to the job is it an issue??

That response is dismissive and insulting. I am not just parroting what I've been told.

You've already made up your mind and you are trying to get people to agree with you about stuffing a big fish into a tank. You're getting angry with others because they disagree with you and you're trying to dismiss their answers.

Yes, an oscar will "live" in a small tank. Will it be happy and comfortable? Who knows because none of us can read a fish's mind.

I prefer to respect my pets and give them a larger space to roam and explore.

Based on your rationale in this thread, we can raise oscars in five gallon buckets as long as we have a lot of filters and change the water a lot. Will the oscar live? Maybe. But that's simply not respecting my pet.

Will a dog live in a kennel? Yup, they'll even breed as the puppy mills prove. But their quality of life is garbage regardless of how often the kennel is cleaned.

I would never keep anything but a juvenile oscar in a 55. One in a 75 would be minimum, just so it can turn around with having to rub it's face on a tank wall and heavy filtration with lots of water changes.

 

[Andy Sager]

The fish has changed....

Since I usually get lambasted for my fish keeping approaches, I guess I should chime in here as well.

When you talk about Oscars today, you talk about a fish that has been, as mentioned before, in- bred, line bred and genetically manipulated to not be anything like their wild counterparts. This means that you are talking about fish that have been tank raised or small pond raised but not wild raised. This means they do not know the liberties of swimming cross stream or down or up river, etc. What they do know is confinement. Is that cruel?

40+ years ago, when there were only 4 types of Oscars available (Commons, Reds, Red Tigers and Emerald Greens) I bred 13 pairs of these fish. My mentor, a certified icthyologist, had the first pair which he bred in a 30gal tank. (I hear the gasps already ) What you have to remember is that fish grow to the size of their holding facility so yes, these were tank stunted fish but they produced "normal" fry. I know this because from these fish, I grew a pair of new breeders that were 20" and 24" in length. These fish were bred, starting in a 55 (when they were smaller) then moved to a custom made 50 gal tank because they were longer than 12". Why the water reduction? Because I increased the area that they needed, length and width, which enabled me to decrease the unnecessary element, the height. Eventually, all my breeders, which were mostly smaller, were bred in these custom tanks and were EXTREMELY prolific. The reason for this was the quality of their water. No, it wasn't done with massive machines, canister filters and whatnot. It was done with a little elbow grease and proper water changing schedules. These fish got a 10%-15% water change every other day and their water was fine. Yes, Oscars are messy fish so siphoning the tank bottoms was mandatory. But the time I spent on each tank was minimal because the detritus never got a chance to accumulate making the water quality easier to maintain. The fact that these fish, multiple pairs of these fish in fact, all bred continuously under these conditions can lead one to believe that no physical or psychological damage was being done to these fish under these conditions. (They were not "Stepford" fish. )

As Dave said, there are a lot of OPINIONS on what is the right way to keep these fish but when you take all the human emotions out of the equation and the so called "FACTS" that others have brought forth, the bottom line is that the proper tank for this fish all depends on the hobbyist keeping them. The fish adapt. Can they be kept in a smaller tank? I have created thousands of Oscar fry that would say yes. Should they be kept in smaller tanks? That's a matter of opinion. The FACTS are that they can live a long life in any sized tank (within reason. Don't bring up a 10 gal tank ) you put them in if you take care of their water. If you want to see your fish swimming around and uprooting your decor, put them into a bigger tank. If you just want to see the fish and clean the poop, you can use a smaller tank.

Lastly, I would like to point out, I have been lucky enough to observe Oscars in both aquariums and in the wild ( the wild was in the canal system of Florida where I live.) You would think that in these huge canals that you would see the fish swimming hear and there and everywhere but they didn't. I went to the same spots, everytime, and saw the same fish, everytime. The only time they swam away was to deeper waters when the temps got cooler. It's this behavior (in part) that makes this specie capable of being kept in a home aquarium in the first place. If it really needed the space, do you really think a 6' long by 2' wide tank is a good substitute for a river or pond?

Let the lambasting begin

 

[DragonFish71]

And I quote:

"These fish were bred, starting in a 55 (when they were smaller) then moved to a custom made 50 gal tank because they were longer than 12". Why the water reduction? Because I increased the area that they needed, length and width, which enabled me to decrease the unnecessary element, the height."

Essentially the same thing I stated; FOOTPRINT of the tank.

As for the rest of your post, I'll be lady like and just let it go.

 

[bud29]

If you want to see your fish swimming around and uprooting your decor, put them into a bigger tank. If you just want to see the fish and clean the poop, you can use a smaller tank.

So you are saying that putting fish in a bigger tank is just for our entertainment? No! If you ask someone why they have their oscar in a 75, they will say, "The bigger tank is better for the fish and the fish will be healthier." They will not say, "I thought it would be cooler to watch it in a 75."

I doubt that people would pay more for a big tank so then the fish would be cooler to watch. They buy it because it creates a healthier environment for the fish. If we had the option of putting an oscar in a 30 gallon without negatively impacting the well-being of the fish, quite a few more people would do it. Nobody would want to buy a bigger tank if they could house it just as well in a smaller one. But you can't house an oscar just as well in a smaller tank, and that is why you see people go out and buy a 75 for an oscar even when they have an empty 55 sitting around in their house. It is better for them.

 

[Andy Sager]

And I quote:

"These fish were bred, starting in a 55 (when they were smaller) then moved to a custom made 50 gal tank because they were longer than 12". Why the water reduction? Because I increased the area that they needed, length and width, which enabled me to decrease the unnecessary element, the height."

Essentially the same thing I stated; FOOTPRINT of the tank.

As for the rest of your post, I'll be lady like and just let it go.

If I repeated your comment without giving you credit, I apologize. I was not trying to make a unique statement. What I was trying to say was that the mandatory gallonage, as Daveho I believe was questioning, almost becomes moot if you can give your fish the space it wants or needs and still maintain water quality. It think the debate is really more of what the fish needs vs what we as hobbyists want to give the fish. My experiences with this fish tells me that I gave them what they needed or I shouldn't have had the results I had, with multiple fish no less.

As for the last part of your comment, if you better understand the fish,( not the human interpretation of the fish) you might not be so quick to dismiss the rest of my post. But everyone is entitled to their opinion whether right or wrong.

 

[bud29]

Yes. Good footprint is necessary. But, regardless of footprint, the fewer gallons of water there are the higher concentration of waste there will be. Now, don't get me wrong, I support moving it to the custom 50 instead of the 55. If you lose a few gallons to gain a better footprint IMO that is ok. But, if you want to put it in a 55 instead of a 75 you are putting the Oscar in a tank with a smaller footprint and with 20 gallon less of water. This does two things:
1. Gives the Oscar less swimming space than it would have in a 75
2. Raises the waste concentration in the water from what it would be in the 75.
Higher waste concentration means more ammonia, more nitrites, and more nitrates. This means it is MUCH harder to keep the water parameters where they should be, which results in sick or dead fish.

 

[daveho]

im glad we are finally getting somewhere here, as some of you have have come to realise this question isnt just me trying to justify putting big fish in a small tank (i have 4 tanks currently running do u think i care if i get bigger ones) the question is despite the years of internet folk law and the rules regurgitated by those who havent ever owned one of these amazing fish is water quality the issue or is it the physical size of the tank, in addition there are obviously going to be diffrent oppinions on how to keep larger fish the problem is of cause that everyone seems to be an expert.
it is interesting that people like andy, huckit and jeta people who have been in the biz for years who would have been most exposed to the full set of "rules" are coming at this with an open mind.

 

[DragonFish71]

Yep that's me, closed minded. I care about the adult size of my fish and plan ahead to make sure they reach their full potential and thrive.

Let's see, my jacks started in a 55 until they were 4 inches, then I got a 120, got it cycled and moved them.

My jags, when I had them, started in a 40 at 2 inches, went to a 55 at 4 inches, then on up to a 125 at 5-6 inches. I eventually sold them and their tank when they were 12-14 inches (male and female)

Again, not open minded. Why? Because I plan for growth. Apparently that is the wrong thing to do in this hobby as a few are stating.

So, me and my closed-mindedness will go finish cleaning my happy, healthy, thriving jack tank and bid y'all a lady-like fare the well.

 

[HUKIT]

im glad we are finally getting somewhere here, as some of you have have come to realise this question isnt just me trying to justify putting big fish in a small tank (i have 4 tanks currently running do u think i care if i get bigger ones) the question is despite the years of internet folk law and the rules regurgitated by those who havent ever owned one of these amazing fish is water quality the issue or is it the physical size of the tank, in addition there are obviously going to be diffrent oppinions on how to keep larger fish the problem is of cause that everyone seems to be an expert.
it is interesting that people like andy, huckit and jeta people who have been in the biz for years who would have been most exposed to the full set of "rules" are coming at this with an open mind.

Firstly you've got to start using punctuation, correct spelling, and some basic sentence structure if you really want people to listen to your thoughts here.

Secondly this topic does not make for a good debate because it's heavily one sided. There are dozens of MORE reasons to keep fish like this in very large tanks than there are reasons to do the opposite. Would I keep a oscar in 55g personally? The answer is NO, it's far to much work to handle for a single fish.

I don't agree with your philosophy or thought process here, I was merely making a point to the rest of the forum that not everything in this hobby is written in stone.

Lastly the practices of people in the commercial breeding of fish shouldn't be followed by hobbyist in my opinion, these people are out to make money and are not necessary concerned with the long term health of their fish.

 

[Andy Sager]

So you are saying that putting fish in a bigger tank is just for our entertainment? No! If you ask someone why they have their oscar in a 75, they will say, "The bigger tank is better for the fish and the fish will be healthier." They will not say, "I thought it would be cooler to watch it in a 75."

I doubt that people would pay more for a big tank so then the fish would be cooler to watch. They buy it because it creates a healthier environment for the fish. If we had the option of putting an oscar in a 30 gallon without negatively impacting the well-being of the fish, quite a few more people would do it. Nobody would want to buy a bigger tank if they could house it just as well in a smaller one. But you can't house an oscar just as well in a smaller tank, and that is why you see people go out and buy a 75 for an oscar even when they have an empty 55 sitting around in their house. It is better for them.

Okay, so let's examine your statement: You're saying that if you ask people, a bigger tank automatically makes the water cleaner thereby making the fish healthier? Who are these people and what qualifies them to make this statement? Experience? Gut Instinct? Human emotion? Something they read in a book? I happen to know that statement is far from the truth as I have cleaned a number of people's larger cesspools that they called aquariums. But let's just say that you have a 200 gal tank with proper filtration and do routine water changes and you acheive the following water parameters: Ammonia: 0, Nitrite: 0, Nitrate: less than 25 PPM, and you only have 2 Oscars in the tank and they grow to be 12" long and they are breeding. You would believe that you are doing the absolute right thing for them. Correct? Well that's what I had but I was doing in a 50 gal tank and they were breeding like rabbits. I know I've had this conversation before but the truth of the matter is that fish don't breed when they are stressed out. Find me any breeder with crap for water and their fish still producing both viable eggs and living healthy fry. I'm not talking about wild fish in wild situations, I'm talking home aquarium fish in home aquariums.
Why "a 75 when they have an empty 55?" I don't know! A standard 75 is the exact same tank as a standard 55 only 6 inches wider. (I've had and sold both.) You don't gain swimming length but gain turning space. If you lived in a 4' closet and someone made it 6 inches wider, would you do better in that?

The points I was making were that since these are not wild fish anymore, their needs have changed and AS wild fish, they didn't use as much space (even tho it was available) as many hobbyists believe they need. I believe that was the point of this thread: What makes a large tank MANDATORY for this fish? I believe, based on my multiple experiences with these magnificent fish, that it's human emotion that demands the larger tank and not the fish themselves. The fish adapt. You finished your post by saying "It is better for them." My question is: Better in what way? You gave them more space that they didn't need because you wanted them to have more space but you didn't give them better water than I did as my water would have tested the same as yours. WHY do the fish think it's better?

To address the poster who asked about putting a 24 inch fish in a 24 inch wide tank, no, it's not a good idea but what if the tank was 25 inches and the fish had enough room to turn around, would that be okay? In fact, when was the last time any of these new Oscars grew to be 24"? Should today's Oscars that don't grow to the wild Oscar's size require the same tank sizes?

To the poster who mentioned putting a dog in a crate and asking if it was okay because they bred: We are not talking about mammals, we are talking about fish. Is that good husbandry? Not for dogs, so don't buy them. But I'm talking about the fish still being able to naturally complete their mission for being, which is to procreate and pass along their genetic material. So I pose this question to you: Since domesticated dogs are man made and created to do different things, would it be cruel to keep a, say, St. Bernard or let's say an Alaskan Husky in a 3000 sq. ft house but only in the house? It's a big house isn't it? I'm sure if you ask any Vet worth his salt, he'd tell you you were being cruel to the dog. I'm also sure that the animals themselves would suffer both physical and emotional damage by doing this. That's because theses types of dogs require more space. Would a tea cup poodle do okay in this situation? Sure would, because it doesn't need all the extra space. Oscars don't require the amount of space that everybody thinks is appropriate. The evidence points to that. If people want to give it to them, I'm sure not going to stop them. It's their choice.
I'm also not proposing bad husbandry just a better understanding of the fish that we are keeping.

But let's not stop at Oscars, I believe all Koi living in a fish tank, NO MATTER HOW LARGE, are being kept cruely because this fish grows larger than most anyone's aquarium, yet people still put them in one when they are small. Is tank stunting this fish cruel? Are the posters on this thread going to confront the hobbyists doing this or Boycott the stores selling Koi to a tank person? What about Parrot Cichlids? Don't you think it's cruel to make a fish with a contorted mouth that it can't feed "normally" and it's body is a disfigured form of it's original species? If this fish isn't an example of an entertaiment fish, I don't know what is? How about Glo- fish, Berry tetras, painted Glassfish, etc. Aren't these entertainment fish too? They are certainly not natural!!!!

I'm sure I've entered a hornet's nest with this post so I'll let you all keep bashing. Truth is, I know what I know because I've done what I've done and seen what I've seen. Like it or not, if you've experienced what I have experienced, you wouldn't be having this conversation and probably not be keeping today's fish as a "Hobby."

Let the bashing recommence

 

[bud29]

Okay, so let's examine your statement: You're saying that if you ask people, a bigger tank automatically makes the water cleaner thereby making the fish healthier?

In a way yes. Say you keep 2 oscars of the same age, one in a 55 and one oscar in a 75. Both will excrete very similar amounts of waste. But the waste concentration in the 75 will be lower than that of the 55. And lower waste concentration means less ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate, which means healthier fish.

 

[Cichlid Kid]

At the end of the day, "and the end of this thread" the O.P. has to live with the fact that they're willingly providing less than adequate living conditions to their fish. As an avid fishkeeper of over 25yrs i strive to provide an environment that comes as close to paralleling natural conditions as i possibly can. It's unrealistic to think we are providing the same level as mother nature but we owe it to the fish to try our best, not to merely "get by" goodluck.

 

[Andy Sager]

Firstly you've got to start using punctuation, correct spelling, and some basic sentence structure if you really want people to listen to your thoughts here.

Lastly the practices of people in the commercial breeding of fish shouldn't be followed by hobbyist in my opinion, these people are out to make money and are not necessary concerned with the long term health of their fish.

I agree with your first point about proper spelling, punctuation, etc... I think the TEXT world has invaded too far into the english language.

But I need to disagree with you that ALL commercial fish breeders are in it for the money only and not concerned about the long term health of the fish. The reason I became such a successful commercial breeder WAS because I cared for the fish as much as I did. I kept most of my fish for their natural lives or later sold or gave away the older breeders for people to still enjoy. Some of my fellow breeders are still breeding lines of my fish 30+ years later so it was not about making product but making QUALITY product for me. I'm sure I am not the only one who did this either. To set the record straight, I am a hobbyist first and a breeder second. It's why I offer my expertice, at no charge, to budding breeders and hobbyists who are getting the wrong info at the LFS and websites. For example, just yesterday I was at a chain pet shop talking to the fish person about the "good old days." I thought she was familiar. When I mentioned to her about wanting to breed Dwarf Gourami's again but couldn't buy hers because she had no females, she said " I don't know why we have no females. Do they have less color than the males?" How can you be in the fish business, selling fish, and not know this? Can you trust that this person knows enough about fish to sell you the proper things needed to accurately maintain your fish selection? I say get rid of the chain stores and bring back the Mom & Pop stores and this hobby will get corrected rather quickly. Bad info from a Mom & Pop puts them out of biz quickly but not these large chain stores. Bad info rains supreme and survive because of price.

I'm sure I don't stand alone on this issue and just as you are entitled to your opinion, I am entitled to mine. Mine however, was formed by being on both sides of the issue. Was yours? Just curious

 

[Andy Sager]

In a way yes. Say you keep 2 oscars of the same age, one in a 55 and one oscar in a 75. Both will excrete very similar amounts of waste. But the waste concentration in the 75 will be lower than that of the 55. And lower waste concentration means less ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate, which means healthier fish.

I have to disagree. It means improper filtration on the 55.

 

[Andy Sager]

At the end of the day, "and the end of this thread" the O.P. has to live with the fact that they're willingly providing less than adequate living conditions to their fish. As an avid fishkeeper of over 25yrs i strive to provide an environment that comes as close to paralleling natural conditions as i possibly can. It's unrealistic to think we are providing the same level as mother nature but we owe it to the fish to try our best, not to merely "get by" goodluck.

But that's my point. I've studied this fish in it's "natural environment" and it does not use the space that people here are demanding it have. It needs good water quality. What the larger tank truely provides is more time between water changes and a nicer picture to look at. And I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with that. But it shouldn't be considered "THE LAW!"

 

[bud29]

I have to disagree. It means improper filtration on the 55.

As jetajockey stated, filtration does not deal with nitrates.

Also, filtration takes a little bit of gunk out of the water, but does not remove ammonia and nitrites.