Is 60gal big enough to keep a full grown oscar?

[snail]

This is just an interest question. I'm not actually planning on getting an oscar but I've always liked them. I saw some really huge ones at a public aquarium (they had all been rehomed there by people who didn't have space for them any more). I've seen as small as a 40 gal tank recomended for oscars but I'm not sure the oscars I saw would even fit into a 40 gallon! They were living in a really huge tank (like the size of a small swimming pool) so had probably grown more than they would in a normal tank but I'm still not seeing 40 gallons being big enough. Others say 60 gallons minimum. Is that big enough for a full grown 10 year old oscar? Even that doesn't seem all that big when lots of people say you shouldn't keep a goldfish in less than 55 gallons. Just wondered what the experts have to say.

[rothenb1]

Most people on here would say 75gal+ per oscar. They're a hefty fish with a high bioload and like to redecorate when possible!

[snail]

That kind of sounds more like it to me. Just interested.

[Lady Hobbs]

Tanks that are 12" wide is the problem. Oscars need to be able to turn around easily once grown.

[MCHRKiller]

I had a pair of around 5 year old Oscars that were 14", Oscars have the maximum potential to grow to between 16-18"...you can see how this will pose a problem. Fish continue to grow throughtout their entire lives, their growth rate only slows down as they grow larger. If a healthy oscar without poor genes were to live for 10 years they could easily exceed 15"...at that point even a 75G is tight. Most domestic oscars do not grow to these sizes due to inbreeding and influence of growth hormones. Generally speaking a tank less than 48*18" will not work for a long term situation.

[chronic]

Everyone else has said it, but yeah I wouldn't!

[Pleco380]

I think a 75 would even be a bit small for an oscar. IMO, 100 minimum.

[FishyPastor]

I always heard evryone say 125.

[Northernguy]

A 75 is perfect for one oscar!
A 125 is a good size for two.Bigger is better.

[snail]

Thanks for all the input. I think this is really interesting, as I say I'm not planning on getting an oscar just now but it doesn't hurt to be informed, you never know....:hmm3grin2orange:

[AndorranPrince]

Gonna be honest and kind of go against the tide here, a 50 is better than most oscars will get, so I don't really see a problem with such.

[snail]

Gonna be honest and kind of go against the tide here, a 50 is better than most oscars will get, so I don't really see a problem with such.

I'd go with the 75+ but I can see your point. It would partly depend on how big your fish gets and how much work you are willing to put in to keep water quality up. Lady Hobbs made a good point about the fish being able to turn around.

[tyrone681]

hey a oscar feneraly need 75 us gallon then plus 25 us gallon on top of that for every extra oscar

[m1aman]

Gonna be honest and kind of go against the tide here, a 50 is better than most oscars will get, so I don't really see a problem with such.


I knew a guy once that had a 12" and a 10" Oscar in a 55gal tank. They were very nice looking and didn't seem to be under any stress. They let me hand feed them even though they did not know me. He did comment that he vacuumed every day.

Fish have flexible bodies so a 12" inch fish would not need a 12" wide tank to turn around in. They are not as stiff as boards.

It is not about the space as much as the water conditions imo. Good clean water at a steady temperature works wonders. :ssmile:

[johndoe222]

My dad was succesfull in keeping 2 oscars in a 55g for about 11 years with minimul mantenance(sp?). But the again he was also succesful in keeping 2 moray eels in the same tank a couple of years earlyer. I think my dad had the magic touch though.

[MCHRKiller]

Survival doesnt necessarily mean thriving.

[ILuvMyGoldBarb]

Survival doesnt necessarily mean thriving.


Couldn't have said it better myself. thumbs2:

[flydustydawg]

Survival doesnt necessarily mean thriving.

+1 for MCHRKiller

That is what we should always remember when thinking about a situation like this.

A person could live in a 6x6x6 box their whole life and grow to average hight. I dont think any one would be happy this way though.

[m1aman]

Survival doesnt necessarily mean thriving.

I didn't re-read everything but I don't think anyone was talking about surviving.

But since you brought it up.....

How can anyone tell the difference between surviving and thriving? The fish can't tell us.

How do you determine how big a tank for a particular fish? Where is the manual? The exhaustive study?

[MCHRKiller]

No exhaustive study needed, if the fish were in nitrates over 40ppm they were suffering. If they were not atleast 10-12" they were stunted. It may be possible to grow out 2 healthy oscars to full size and potential in a 55G. But this is however not possible with slack maintenance or infrequent WCs. The water volume on the tank would have had to have been replaced at the very least weekly, an extensive filtration system would also have been needed. Oscars are extremely hardy fish, they are born survivors its not shock that even in obviously cramped conditions they made it for around a decade.

Water quality and the apperance of fish tell us alot about how their health is, healthy thriving fish look healthy and thriving. They are active, owner responsive and their coloration gleams. Surviving fish are not nearly as active and they dont look the picture of health. Oscars in particular will develope lesions on their head from poor diet and water conditions(HITH disease) they will sulk or hang in various areas of the tank for long periods of time and their size will also be small. Fish grow their entire lives to some extent, although genetics play a factor healthy Oscars will be atleast a foot in length and 7-8" in height by the time they die of natural causes.

Tank size is determined by bioload, maintenance, and the size of the fish. A 12"+ bulky fish cannot turn in a 12" aquarium, 18" wide and 4ft long should be regarded as minimal. The smallest standard tank that size is 75G.

[m1aman]

"No exhaustive study needed, if the fish were in nitrates over 40ppm they were suffering. If they were not atleast 10-12" they were stunted. It may be possible to grow out 2 healthy oscars to full size and potential in a 55G. But this is however not possible with slack maintenance or infrequent WCs. The water volume on the tank would have had to have been replaced at the very least weekly, an extensive filtration system would also have been needed. Oscars are extremely hardy fish, they are born survivors its not shock that even in obviously cramped conditions they made it for around a decade. "

If you are referring to the Oscars I saw in a friends tank I don't understand what your point is. In fact you seem to be making my point for me that an Oscar can do fine in a 55g with proper care. My friend apparently was taking good care of his Oscars as they looked great. As to their size that would depend on how old they were and I do not remember.


"Water quality and the apperance of fish tell us alot about how their health is, healthy thriving fish look healthy and thriving."

I did not use the word thriving but I did say they looked healthy. At least that was the gist of what I was saying.


"12"+ bulky fish cannot turn in a 12" aquarium, 18" wide and 4ft long should be regarded as minimal. The smallest standard tank that size is 75G.

Again I ask, where is your evidence? If people see healthy Oscars in a 55g doesn't that prove you wrong?

[MCHRKiller]

Im not trying to be right, only to state basic known facts of fish keeping. It is possible, as I am sure a handful of people have done it. It would however require strict dedication, huge biofiltration, and multiple large WCs per week. *MOST* people are not dedicated enough to do the maintenance required to support those fish in a tank that size for life.

The Oscars I am talking about are adults, a 55G is not large enough for multiple adults...hell its not large enough for 1 adult to turn around. Juvie fish which are not full size simply do not count into this equation. However not upgrading fish and keeping them in proper water conditions will stunt them. Stunted fish are a result of piss poor aquarium keeping. Another factor which could rule out keeping them in a tank that size is aggression, they need space to themselves.

I see lots of healthy Oscars in 55G tanks, LFS I have visited had 10-12 Oscars in a 55G. However these were 4-6" juvies hardly the same as adults, plus they had a DIY wet dry filter and an automatic WC system...obviously they were well cared for long enough to be sold.

I didnt know evidence was required to understand that a 14" Oscar could not turn around in a 12" wide tank. But I am sure google would be a good asset for that...

[m1aman]

I didnt know evidence was required to understand that a 14" Oscar could not turn around in a 12" wide tank.

Of course he could turn around. Their bodies bend, they are flexible. I wouldn't put a fish in that position myself, but let's be honest.... he COULD turn around.

Okay so I understand you have your opinion and it certainly doesn't hurt to give a fish all of the space you can. But you haven't proven anything and that is because NO ONE really knows if a fish is healthier in a 75g then a 55g.

"It would however require strict dedication, huge biofiltration, and multiple large WCs per week. *MOST* people are not dedicated enough to do the maintenance required to support those fish in a tank that size for life."

I agree most people wouldn't be that dedicated. But you being overly dramatic by saying "huge" and "multiple."

And one more question.... are you saying that a fish is not a healthy, thriving fish if he doesn't reach his maximum length possible?

[johndoe222]

Water quality and the apperance of fish tell us alot about how their health is, healthy thriving fish look healthy and thriving. They are active, owner responsive and their coloration gleams.

You just described what my dads oscars AND morays looked liked for there combined 20+ years. And just because I said minimul doesn't mean he didn't do WCs and tests. It just means that the tank was easy to care for.

[MCHRKiller]

Not overly dramatic, just having common sense. A 14" Oscar has an additional 2-3" of tail fin, at best it could struggle to turn itself and swim a piddly 3X its own length. You also should factor in aquarium equipment inside the tank which would take up an additional 1" or so room along the back of the tank. The previous scenario was for 2 Oscars in a 55G, hence the multiple, and if you have ever saw a fully grown specimin you would understand the huge aspect.

A fish is not healthy and thriving if it is stunted, genetics do play a role in how large a fish will grow but the fish will apear proportioned even if it is a genetically smaller individual. But an even larger part is played by how the fish has been housed.

I have nothing to prove to you, a simple google search would yield all of the proof you are asking to find.

You would also have to blind not to see that an adult fish would not be healthier in a tank it didnt have to struggle for its life to turn around in. Especially considering anyone who would subject an animal to that also most likely would not be willing to provide adequate care to keep water levels in the safe range.

[snail]

Wasn't trying to sart world war three, it's all interesting though.

One point about water changes m1aman said:

I agree most people wouldn't be that dedicated. But you being overly dramatic by saying "huge" and "multiple."
It sounds exactly like what your friend was doing though. He seemed to be doing water changes every day, which probably explains his success. He must also have had a couple of docile oscars if there were not problems with two in such a small space. Do you you know if they were raised together?

[Scrup]

This is a fairly dated post...and the OP hasn't logged on since Oct....

Just sayin...

Also, huge and multiple are not dramatic. Fish poop. Oscars poop more than most fish. Carnivores tend to poop even more so. Poop is bad and needs to be dealt with. Lots of poop needs lots of bio media. Bio media breaks it down into nitrates, which you then need to remove from the water. With only 55-60G, nitrates will accumulate very quickly. Change the water more often than usual.

Not sure why this is being argued...:confused:

[Scrup]

And the OP shows up....go figure...lmao.

[snail]

lol, just got notification that there were replies to the post so I decided to pop my head in :)

[m1aman]

Not sure why this is being argued...:confused:

I don't think it is being argued. Just looking for some solid proof to back up the claim that an Oscar needs a 75g tank. So far I am just getting assumptions. The bottom line is nobody really knows for sure. It's more about what we think is right. No science behind it. If people are seeing healthy, normal acting fish in a 55g then that is proof a 55 is acceptable. And it is silly to say that so and so needs to be done as far as cleaning and water quality.... aren't we supposed to be doing that anyway? Water changes and cleaning the fish tank are a part of the hobby. More fish inches per gallon means more work.

If you will look through the thread you will see that tyrone681 brought it back to life with his response. I think it is a pretty interesting thread myself.

[MCHRKiller]

Seeing some subadults in a 55G that are still healthy is a far fetch from science.

[ralphsparker]

I would go for 75 +, but I can understand what you mean. This will depend in part on how much your fish becomes, how much work you are willing to put into maintaining water quality. Hobbes made a good point about the wife of the fish can be reversed.

[KatzeSlaugen]

m1aman it may seem that its an assumption you need a 75gal for oscars, but its also your assumption you can keep one healthy in a 55gal.
its been done in both and i can almost guarentee that the oscar in the 75gal was happier

however, a fish that is longer than the tank is wide in almost all cases IS an issue. a full grown oscar is not suited for a 55gal. even if you had massive filtration and did huge water changes IMO its still inhumane to keep a large fish in such a small area.

in relation its kindof like if you were locked in a room that is 3.1 feet long and not wide enough for you to turn around without contorting.

[m1aman]

its been done in both and i can almost guarentee that the oscar in the 75gal was happier

IMO its still inhumane to keep a large fish in such a small area.

.

Fish are not happy. Their whole lives are based on instinct and conditioned responses.

Keeping fish period is inhumane to a lot of people. It is probably selfish as well.

[KatzeSlaugen]

i have to disagree about that. if a fish isnt "happy" then it isnt healthy or something in impairing its happiness. i bet an oscar in a 75gal would be more active than an oscar in a 55. it would have more room to swim and would be "happier"
and to get to the nitty gritty 99% of animals live by instinct and conditioned responses and they can certainly be happy

[MCHRKiller]

Yep, especially fish like Oscars which have (for a fish) a fairly high intelligence level. I would actually place an adult Oscar in the same range of intelligence as an infant child. Belief of some people is that animals do not feel emotion, but for those of us who believe differently this is something we find impossible to think that a fish cannot be "happy". The same terms of happiness to we humans may not directly apply to a fish but surely they can appreciate being well fed, cared for and having ample space and stimulation in their tank environment....which to me would constitute a pretty happy fish.