the oscar debate.

[aaronjohn20]

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

Why wouldn't it be realistic? All you need is the same new tanks, same new filters, same food, same feeding dose and scedule, same water source and temp, basically the same everything and of course healthy oscars and some sort of fish vet to determine cause of death (ie natural, existing heart condition, ect. Ect) this debate will continue to go on for YEARS until someone does this OR the mods close it down which I'm sure isn't too far away.

 

[DragonFish71]

Yeah it would then it would end the debate

Nothing could ever end the debate of the right size tank for a fish. Too many variables.

bio-load, adult size, diet, filtration, tank size, water supply, other tank mates etc, etc, etc.

Things like this will always come up for debate because you have those who are passionate about aquaria and doing right by the fish in their care VS those who only want something pretty to look at and could care less about making a long-term investment in the wellbeing of said fish.

 

[Brox]

Why wouldn't it be realistic? All you need is the same new tanks, same new filters, same food, same feeding dose and scedule, same water source and temp, basically the same everything and of course healthy oscars and some sort of fish vet to determine cause of death (ie natural, existing heart condition, ect. Ect) this debate will continue to go on for YEARS until someone does this OR the mods close it down which I'm sure isn't too far away.

First off you would probably want 5+ of each tank so 10+ minimum then since oscars live long it would take years and years

 

[Andy Sager]

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.

Hi Jet:
In response to your previous post, I was saying "Bashing" in a light hearted way due to my experience on other threads and I take each comment based on the commentor. I don't feel like or play a victim on this site, I'm just trying to keep my end light and thought provoking. (And I think I am succeeding based on people's reaction)
People's opinions are just that and it just so happens, the 2 threads I've had the most negative comments towards me on are the 2 fish I was highly specialized in so yes, I feel that I have an upper hand on the situation. This is in no way to be taken as demeaning to anyone else and if taken that way, I surely do apologize because it was not intended. But if you had a question about the moon, would you ask the student who is taking science classes in school or someone like mission control and the late Neil Armstrong? THAT'S my point.

As for your comment "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 need to add that this is only half the battle. The point is the viability of the eggs and fry. Most aquarists from my generation would agree that they could get the fish to spawn in soup but the resulting hatches and quality of the fry would be garbage. My defense to my methods was that I had very viable hatchings and fry. If not, I couldn't (actually wouldn't) say what I say.

The interesting part of this whole conversation is that there is a theory, created by I don't know who, that says that things need to be done in a certain way, but don't have or explain the reasoning behind the statements. Our hobby has been overrun with people who do not have the experience or knowhow telling other people how to do things. Follow this up with the sources that they are getting their info from which are far from accurate. That's not my opinion, that, unfortunately, is a fact. I wish it weren't so.

I agree with the previous posters who said that this topic has been beaten to death. I say "Keep your fish the way you want and I'll keep mine the way I know how and I'd be willing to bet, they both last as long" Have a good night everybody

 

[bud29]

Nothing could ever end the debate of the right size tank for a fish. Too many variables.

bio-load, adult size, diet, filtration, tank size, water supply, other tank mates etc, etc, etc.

Things like this will always come up for debate because you have those who are passionate about aquaria and doing right by the fish in their care VS those who only want something pretty to look at and could care less about making a long-term investment in the wellbeing of said fish.

That is very true. I agree. I was just thinking that a study like that would be a substantial piece of evidence against keeping them in smaller tanks.

 

[bud29]

"Keep your fish the way you want and I'll keep mine the way I know how and I'd be willing to bet, they both last as long"

That is the reason this thread has caught fire; nobody thinks that way. I really don't think anyone is here to fight now, they just are very set on doing the thing that is in the best interest of the fish. Many people (including myself) do not think that keeping an oscar in a 55 is in the best interest of the fish, so that is why we are posting multiple times trying to defend our position. I am not saying I agree with your position (I don't!) but I think this is the reason this debate has many passionate aquarists kind of upset.

 

[Andy Sager]

That is the reason this thread has caught fire; nobody thinks that way. I really don't think anyone is here to fight now, they just are very set on doing the thing that is in the best interest of the fish. Many people (including myself) do not think that keeping an oscar in a 55 is in the best interest of the fish, so that is why we are posting multiple times trying to defend our position. I am not saying I agree with your position (I don't!) but I think this is the reason this debate has many passionate aquarists kind of upset.

I think that was the Daveho's point at the very beginning. Who is to say what is right? I was just pointing out that things I did and observed, contradict what is commonly believed to be gospel. That's all. In truth, If I was going to have another big tank, I'd fill it up with large schools of Tetras and plants. Oscars were just too much work

BTW, I used to have MTS myself and I'm happy to say, there is no cure

 

[Crawdaddy]

This discussion has been going on all day, and though somewhat entertaining to read, it seems to me that we are beating a dead horse here. Let me state this before going any further, I do not, never have, nor do I plan on ever having an oscar. But I do have African cichlids, another tank with community fish, and a third for a betta. If you go to the tropical/community section and read posts about bettas and the condition we find them in the store, it seems to me that it has some similarities to this discussion. My wife found a betta that she just fell in love with, so trying to be a good pet owner, I spent the money to get another tank, filter, bubbler, and everything that goes with it. My cichlids are in a 55 gallon tank, and my wife is tired of hearing me harp on needing to get a 6 foot tank (I'm wearing her down daily by the way). It all comes down to doing what we feel is right for our pets. My vet bill today for my two dogs was a couple of hundred, and that's just for the routine stuff. If you feel that a 55 gallon tank is enough for your Oscar, then by all means get a 55. If I wake up one morning thinking I have to have an Oscar, I will buy the biggest tank I can for it, just like I'm doing now to replace my 55.

Everyone that has been posting on this thread has some very strong opinions about the minimum size tank needed. The OP was asking for scientific proof for this argument, I'm sorry, but if you don't want to hear what the experts here have to say, try Googling it and find out what the scientists say.

 

[DragonFish71]

Ok folks, let's keep it on topic please.

 

[daveho]

"Everyone that has been posting on this thread has some very strong opinions about the minimum size tank needed. The OP was asking for scientific proof for this argument, I'm sorry, but if you don't want to hear what the experts here have to say, try Googling it and find out what the scientists say."

thats my point there isnt anything that scientits are saying, so the whole argument is based on "expert" opinion, as for the happieness factor both of my oscars in quesion had been sulking for weeks straight i have acctuly never seen it this bad befor so i poped em in togeather and bam they are now the best of friends (i belive they may be female) and are so full of life now, wouldnt it be cruel to seperate them?

although there are very diffrent opinions to mine and thats fine but honestly what im gonna take away from this is that water qauality is the big issue not the physical size of the tank with in reason

thank you everyone for your input.

 

[Talvari]

I find it interesting that no one has brought up the argument of experience.

Can the average person who walks in off the street keep an Oscar happy in a 55 gallon tank? I work at a petstore, and let me answer that for you... No. The average person thinks that doing a small water change once a month, or once every other month, is a lot of work. If the average person walked in off of the street and wanted to get whatever setup he needed for a pair of Oscars, I would direct him to a 90gallon tank, minimum. Even in that situation, who can guarantee that this guy would do the proper maintenance, feed them properly, and just overall, give them the proper care needed for them to reach adult hood and be healthy enough to breed.

If you, as a dedicated hobbyist, can keep a -healthy- pair of Oscars that will willingly and ably breed in a smaller tank with a larger footprint, say that custom 50 gallon that someone mentioned earlier, than more power to you. You are able to give them the water quality and level of care that enables them to be healthy enough to reach adulthood and breed.

As many people have stated, there is nothing written in stone. BUT... In at least a small way, you have GOT to consider the experience level of any given person before you give them advice.

For instance... someone who has never had a salt water tank before? I would never suggest them starting with anything smaller than 20 gallons, simply because it is harder to keep a smaller tank balanced. If someone else came in who has a bunch of saltwater tanks and has been running them for ten+ years without issue... Well then Id gladly show them our newest "nano" tanks and let them be on there merry way.

 

[MrPillow]

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.

But what evidence is there that a fish is actually cognizant of such conditions? If reactions do not extend beyond the instinctive level and the organism has no rational concept of what is happening, how can the term "happiness" even be applied? It is after all a largely human construct, based on the way that the human mind works. Can such humanization's be applied neutrally to the capacity of organisms with brains which are some orders of magnitude lesser developed?

On such grounds one could just as easily make the argument that keeping wild caught fish at all is a terrible choice, because only the largest of public aquaria would be able to house them in a manner which sufficiently emulates their wild habitat - even then the constraints of a closed system play some role in the development of the internal ecosystem. But then one could bring up the argument that perhaps in some instances, aquaria serve a better home for an organism than where it is found in the wild... pollution, climate change, invasive species, etc.. But then where do we draw the line? Under what mechanisms are we to determine concretely that one is better than the other, and if one is appropriate at all?

While it is easy to imagine your disdain for the human condition and it is certainly shared by many individuals on this website, the ability to logically come to solid conclusions by scientific exploration (however tedious and unapproachable it may seem to some), should not be readily dismissed simply under the guise of "ethical husbandry".

Some might be more inclined to side with the "unspoken for" creatures, while I personally would err on the side of caution and treat them than no more as they are.

It seems easy enough to say that "ethics and morals are only a matter of opinion", but if anyone would like to open that argument to the floor I would be more than happy to reduce it to a pile of unsubstantiated drivel. The human mind is a beautiful thing

 

[Paxlerod]

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

Great response! Finally.

 

[5x5]

But what evidence is there that a fish is actually cognizant of such conditions? If reactions do not extend beyond the instinctive level and the organism has no rational concept of what is happening, how can the term "happiness" even be applied? It is after all a largely human construct, based on the way that the human mind works. Can such humanization's be applied neutrally to the capacity of organisms with brains which are some orders of magnitude lesser developed?

On such grounds one could just as easily make the argument that keeping wild caught fish at all is a terrible choice, because only the largest of public aquaria would be able to house them in a manner which sufficiently emulates their wild habitat - even then the constraints of a closed system play some role in the development of the internal ecosystem. But then one could bring up the argument that perhaps in some instances, aquaria serve a better home for an organism than where it is found in the wild... pollution, climate change, invasive species, etc.. But then where do we draw the line? Under what mechanisms are we to determine concretely that one is better than the other, and if one is appropriate at all?

While it is easy to imagine your disdain for the human condition and it is certainly shared by many individuals on this website, the ability to logically come to solid conclusions by scientific exploration (however tedious and unapproachable it may seem to some), should not be readily dismissed simply under the guise of "ethical husbandry".

Some might be more inclined to side with the "unspoken for" creatures, while I personally would err on the side of caution and treat them than no more as they are.

It seems easy enough to say that "ethics and morals are only a matter of opinion", but if anyone would like to open that argument to the floor I would be more than happy to reduce it to a pile of unsubstantiated drivel. The human mind is a beautiful thing

Give the philosophy a rest. You're getting fixated on the word "happy". So change it to "healthy", which can still be observed in organisms with small brains. Dragonfish explained healthy behavior of fish, which she is right - you don't need to be a genius to observe and understand.

Furthermore, An exact replica of a wild environment is not needed to keep a fish healthy.

 

[severum mama]

This thread has run its course. Closed.