the oscar debate.

[HUKIT]

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

Yes I've been involved in nearly all areas of this hobby over the last 30 years, everything from retail, commerical and private breeding programs, conservation, and hobbyist so yes my opinion is based on experience.

I'm currently ranked in the top 10 in a breeding program in one of the countries largest cichlid associations. So yes I've seen dozens of commercial breeding programs around the country. Most I would compare to the canine equivalent of the puppy mill puppies industry. Another reason why 95% of my fish are wild caught from reputable breeders/importers such as Jeff Rapps and Gage Brady because I've witnessed the practices of most commercial breeders.

So I'll repeat I would not recommend the advice on best fish keeping practices from most commercial breeders on this side of the pond or the other.

This topic is like a beating a dead horse and will serve no purpose in the future for aquarists looking to research this supposedly highly controversial subject.

 

[Andy Sager]

As jetajockey stated, filtration does not deal with nitrates.

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

Okay, while this is fun, I have to get some actual work done so this will be my last post for today
Mechanical filtration takes the larger materials out of the water by way of the pads or filter floss but adding things like carbon will chemically clean the water. BIOLOGICAL filtration deals with Ammonia, Nitrites and Nitrates and a seeded sponge filter(s) in both the 55 and 75 would yield the same results. It's not about ammonia concentration, it's about the amount of ammonia present for the nitrosomas to convert. That's not determined by the water volume. It only is determined that way through your test kit. As far as I know, the bacteria do not stop consuming because the ammonia level is lower on the test for the 75 than the 55. As for nitrates, as I said, I did a 10%-15% water change every 2 days so nitrates were NEVER an issue and no matter what size tank you use, if they are an issue for you, you are not caring for your tank properly. (IMO )

I'll check the bashing later

 

[bud29]

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 have proudly never owned any of those fish, and I never intend to. And whenever someone wants to get them I strongly recommend for them not to. It is cruel to do that to an animal, and I oppose it. That is why I am so strongly on the side of Oscars in bigger tanks. Animals should be treated well, and putting Oscars in no less than a 75 gallon is an example of treating them well. Giving them just enough room to turn around is not treating them well IMO. Disagree all you want.

 

[Andy Sager]

Yes I've been involved in nearly all areas of this hobby over the last 30 years, everything from retail, commerical and private breeding programs, conservation, and hobbyist so yes my opinion is based on experience.

I'm currently ranked in the top 10 in a breeding program in one of the countries largest cichlid associations. So yes I've seen dozens of commercial breeding programs around the country. Most I would compare to the canine equivalent of the puppy mill puppies industry. Another reason why 95% of my fish are wild caught from reputable breeders/importers such as Jeff Rapps and Gage Brady because I've witnessed the practices of most commercial breeders.

So I'll repeat I would not recommend the advice on best fish keeping practices from most commercial breeders on this side of the pond or the other.

That's for clarifying and I agree to most. On this subject, however, I like to think of myself as part of the elite 5% who do care. Glad to know there are still others

 

[jetajockey]

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

With all due respect Andy, stop painting yourself like a victim. No one here has bashed you. Having a different opinion than yours does not constitute bashing. If you want more courteous and polite responses then you have to work on it on your end as well. Your level of experience may very well trump most people here but it doesn't give you a free pass, and putting yourself in an ivory tower isn't going to win you much respect, mutual or otherwise, if that mattered at all. Having a minority viewpoint doesn't mean you are wrong at all, but like with anyone making waves they better be able to steer the ship through them without throwing everyone overboard in the process.

I am torn on this subject, primarily because my experience with larger cichlids is limited. However I don't think I'd go to a mass commercial fish breeder for advice on how to properly keep a fish any more than I'd go to a mass commercial poultry farm for advice on how to take care of my chicken.

 

[Sharkbait54]

Good point, I agree with jet. A chicken in a cage lays eggs everyday is he comfortable or not stressed? A Oscar in a small tank breeding? Same thing.

 

[bud29]

Okay, while this is fun, I have to get some actual work done so this will be my last post for today
Mechanical filtration takes the larger materials out of the water by way of the pads or filter floss but adding things like carbon will chemically clean the water. BIOLOGICAL filtration deals with Ammonia, Nitrites and Nitrates and a seeded sponge filter(s) in both the 55 and 75 would yield the same results. It's not about ammonia concentration, it's about the amount of ammonia present for the nitrosomas to convert. That's not determined by the water volume. It only is determined that way through your test kit. As far as I know, the bacteria do not stop consuming because the ammonia level is lower on the test for the 75 than the 55. As for nitrates, as I said, I did a 10%-15% water change every 2 days so nitrates were NEVER an issue and no matter what size tank you use, if they are an issue for you, you are not caring for your tank properly. (IMO )

I'll check the bashing later

Concentration does have something to do with it. I can say without fear of being proven wrong that, say, 10 mL of ammonia will cause a bigger ammonia spike in a 55 gallon than a 75 gallon. That is proven fact. And, the bacteria will gradually reproduce based on the concentration of ammonia in the water. However, too much ammonia will overwhelm the bacteria and stall nitrification.

And, as a side note, I totally and completely agree with jetajockey's statement.

 

[Brox]

Good point, I agree with jet. A chicken in a cage lays eggs everyday is he comfortable or not stressed? A Oscar in a small tank breeding? Same thing.

Actually no the eggs that we eat from chickens are unfertilized and they drop those all the time in whatever condition. Oscars don't bread in filthy water with 60 nitrates and 1.0 ammo

 

[MrPillow]

Topics of this variety always lead me to wonder, what are people using as a gauge of the relative "happiness" of a fish as it were, and what sort of basal measurement are we using to assess and assign this apparently black/white measure of happiness? When is a fish, somewhat happy?

Methinks in the general populus (Clearly there are exceptions, especially amongst a forum of persons more versed in husbandry practices than the average PetSmart shopper) approaches it from a somewhat backwards point - the fish are happy when the keeper does not hold some sort of moral qualm with the way in which there fish are kept. This would explain the vast variations in "minimum" requirements for "happy fish" - this condition rest in the eyes of the keeper, not the animal. Among variations of species how are we even to determine the capacity for "happiness" between varying organisms? I imagine some sort of long term adaptive brainwave studies would be relatively conducive, but I have yet to see any myself or be aware of any ongoing with academia.

I very well expect this will draw derogatory comments from persons within this community, but perhaps if you feel the need to attack my statements one might consider the implications - your defensive rebuttle indicates that you are among those who approach this from the wrong direction. If you are offended by my statements, it would seem you are one of those who dictate the "happiness" of your fish through your own feelings.

Let us hope the discussion might remain calm and collected, lest personal vendettas get in the way of logical discussion.

 

[Sharkbait54]

Actually no the eggs that we eat from chickens are unfertilized and they drop those all the time in whatever condition. Oscars don't bread in filthy water with 60 nitrates and 1.0 ammo

Fairly similar. I meant space wise I said nothing about dirty water. Couped up chicken and a Couped up fish both lay unfertilized eggs.

 

[mfdrookie516]

Interesting topic. I'm actually surprised that tank size requirements for oscars are even being discussed.

 

[jetajockey]

Actually no the eggs that we eat from chickens are unfertilized and they drop those all the time in whatever condition. Oscars don't bread in filthy water with 60 nitrates and 1.0 ammo

I wasn't talking about breeding specifically but just general care. A mass production facility is not likely to be concerned with long term care. There are exceptions to this of course.

And yes, most fish will breed in poor conditions, the drive to pass on dna is at the core of an animal. Because of that, it's a misnomer to think that fish are thriving simply because they are breeding.

 

[Brox]

I wasn't talking about breeding specifically but just general care. A mass production facility is not likely to be concerned with long term care. There are exceptions to this of course.

And yes, most fish will breed in poor conditions, the drive to pass on dna is at the core of an animal. Because of that, it's a misnomer to think that fish are thriving simply because they are breeding.

I still think a Oscar in a clean good filtered 55g would be ok, if its about swimming space I am sure a fish would choose a pond then a tank. But think about most oscars come from tanks or breeding ponds filled with fry. Then at selling sized put in 7 gallon tanks (whatever petsmart tank size is at) with half a dozen others. I think it would like a 55 very much

 

[bud29]

I agree with pillow. We as humans cannot tell if a fish is "happy" or not.

One study I would find interesting: Lifespan of Oscars in a 75 compared to those in a 55. Now I know that it would be subject to tankmates, filtration, pwc schedule, etc. but something like that would prove very handy in situations like these.

 

[Brox]

Pillow I agree with you. We as humans cannot tell if a fish is "happy" or not.

One study I would find interesting: Lifespan of Oscars in a 75 compared to those in a 55. Now I know that it would be subject to tankmates, filtration, pwc schedule, etc. but something like that would prove very handy in situations like these.

But the thing that sucks is that it would take years and you'd have to do multiple tanks with same filters and stuff for even results

 

[bud29]

Yeah. It probably isn't realistic, but as I said it would be very helpful if someone could do something like that.

 

[Brox]

Yeah it would then it would end the debate

 

[bud29]

I still think a Oscar in a clean good filtered 55g would be ok, if its about swimming space I am sure a fish would choose a pond then a tank. But think about most oscars come from tanks or breeding ponds filled with fry. Then at selling sized put in 7 gallon tanks (whatever petsmart tank size is at) with half a dozen others. I think it would like a 55 very much

for the most part I agree with that. I think that it would be good to give them a bit more "wiggle room" but yes it would be better than the tanks at stores. The problem is that with Oscars being such messy fish it would be hard to maintain clean water.

 

[bud29]

Yeah it would then it would end the debate

yup exactly.

 

[DragonFish71]

Topics of this variety always lead me to wonder, what are people using as a gauge of the relative "happiness" of a fish as it were, and what sort of basal measurement are we using to assess and assign this apparently black/white measure of happiness? When is a fish, somewhat happy?

Methinks in the general populus (Clearly there are exceptions, especially amongst a forum of persons more versed in husbandry practices than the average PetSmart shopper) approaches it from a somewhat backwards point - the fish are happy when the keeper does not hold some sort of moral qualm with the way in which there fish are kept. This would explain the vast variations in "minimum" requirements for "happy fish" - this condition rest in the eyes of the keeper, not the animal. Among variations of species how are we even to determine the capacity for "happiness" between varying organisms? I imagine some sort of long term adaptive brainwave studies would be relatively conducive, but I have yet to see any myself or be aware of any ongoing with academia.


I very well expect this will draw derogatory comments from persons within this community, but perhaps if you feel the need to attack my statements one might consider the implications - your defensive rebuttle indicates that you are among those who approach this from the wrong direction. If you are offended by my statements, it would seem you are one of those who dictate the "happiness" of your fish through your own feelings.

Let us hope the discussion might remain calm and collected, lest personal vendettas get in the way of logical discussion.

I base happy on actions and reactions from my observations of my own tanks VS tanks in stores or kept in poor conditions in homes:

happy dog: wags tail, comes to me for love and cuddles

not-happy dog: tail low between it's legs, ears flattened against it's head, showing of teeth, growling, might back away from you or attack you depending on how threatened it feels.

happy cat: purrs, wraps around your legs, jumps on your lap for lovin'

unhappy cat: ears flat against it's head, tip of tail twitches, yawling sounds and hissing, backs away, claws showing

happy fish: swims around it's tank, comes for food, doesn't shy away from you or others in the tank or during a cleaning, no rapid breathing (a sign of distress in most every animal) healthy, no diseases

unhappy fish: hides out, stays to the bottom (for a normally active fish) prone to disease due to stressful situations, doesn't come out for food, shies away when the tank is approached or when you're cleaning, rapid breathing, clamped fins (yes again also signs of disease brought on by stressful conditions)

It doesn't take science or being a genius to note differences in behavior. What it does take to notice these things is to be an aware pet owner. We bring creatures into our homes, they didn't ask to become pets. It's our duty to care for them in the best manner possible. Just because we're humans (not my favorite species on the planet by the way) doesn't mean we're exempt from caring for these creatures.

I have wild caught fish, I give them the closest to their natural habitat that I can. I research my fish and make sure I'm up to task BEFORE I buy something. If I were to get an oscar, which I never would, I'd make sure it had plenty of room to grow AND a clean, healthy environment. This is the reason I won't get an arowana, I know I don't have the right system for one and that I probably can't get what I'd want to keep one healthy.