# tank size



## 2TANK (Oct 11, 2006)

What is the smallest tank that you could put a oscar in. I know a 29 is too small but some books say that is fine. I don't agree and want to know what your opinions are.


----------



## Ramirezi Altispinosis (Jul 12, 2006)

75 gallon IMO. Some say that a 55 will work But I really dont agree, considering an oscar will easily grow larger than the width of the tank.


----------



## imusuallyuseless (Dec 28, 2005)

55G is minimum if you're willing to do pleanty of water changes once it's full grown. 29G is definately too small.


----------



## jhawk (Jan 30, 2006)

75 is the best to get but you could use a 55 only if you have to


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 15, 2005)

jhawk said:


> 75 is the best to get but you could use a 55 only if you have to


I would have said - '75 is better to get but you could use a 55 if you have to'

But I think you can see a consistency in opinions here.....


----------



## RobD213 (Mar 2, 2006)

Agreed with all of the above poster, the only thing i never agree with in these posts is the width being a problem with a 55, a fish can turn in half its body length so a 55 is fine, just means a lot more water changes.


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 15, 2005)

RobD213 said:


> the only thing i never agree with in these posts is the width being a problem with a 55, a fish can turn in half its body length so a 55 is fine


I completely agree... not many captive Oscars actually reach 12 inches and besides... fish bend... lol...

(Note: this was written lightheartedly and meant to bring a smile, not a debate... so smile!)


----------



## illy-d (Nov 6, 2005)

if your considering a 75 - might as well buy the 90... same footprint - more viewing area, and more importantly more total gallons for water stability/buffering.


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 15, 2005)

illy-d said:


> if your considering a 75 - might as well buy the 90... same footprint - more viewing area, and more importantly more total gallons for water stability/buffering.


^^^that's good stuff... I like my 90 MUCH more than I like my 75. Many people only consider a tanks footprint, but taller tanks allow ample free swim area over well stacked caves and such... The downer is 90 Gals use thicker glass and are therefore priced a good bit higher (usually).


----------



## jhawk (Jan 30, 2006)

nc_nutcase said:


> jhawk said:
> 
> 
> > 75 is the best to get but you could use a 55 only if you have to
> ...


Next time I'll chose my words better


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 15, 2005)

oh, I wasn't 'correcting' your wording as I'm sure you worded it express what you meant. I only changed it slightly to better reflect my opinion when reposting it... my opinion is no more/less valid than yours...


----------



## Al'Thor (Mar 11, 2006)

Add one more to the '55gal is OK, 75gal is better' club. You want a 4ft length of tank minimum for one Oscar.


----------



## jhawk (Jan 30, 2006)

nc_nutcase I just wrote it wrong.I think a 55 is good but just like the 75 more water and more room so if you have catfish or pleco's they have room to get away from Oscars.


----------



## imusuallyuseless (Dec 28, 2005)

Dam, this is the most boring O tank size thread ever. Where are all the people that say say one O needs a 6' long tank by itself w/daily water changes :-?


----------



## RobD213 (Mar 2, 2006)

imusuallyuseless said:


> Dam, this is the most boring O tank size thread ever. Where are all the people that say say one O needs a 6' long tank by itself w/daily water changes :-?


I think a 30 gal is fine


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 15, 2005)

I think me meant 300 Gal


----------



## RobD213 (Mar 2, 2006)

Nah I was just mocking useless, i have had my say already 55 ok 75 better, 90 even better and so on.


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 15, 2005)

I know... I was just dragging you to the other extreme....


----------



## RobD213 (Mar 2, 2006)

nc_nutcase said:


> I know... I was just dragging you to the other extreme....


 :lol: :lol: Gotcha, yeh absolute minimum :lol: :lol:


----------



## Ramirezi Altispinosis (Jul 12, 2006)

And heck, if your going for the 300 it would have to be custom anyway, so you might as well get a 600, and your O will be nice and happy! Of course you WILL need the 300 anyway, for the twice-weekly 50% water changes from all the waste he will produce.


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 15, 2005)

NO! 25% water change ONLY. Nothing else is safe!

You just have to make sure you have AT LEAST a 37,500 gph filter to keep the waste from settling on the bottom of your 600 Gal tank (22,000 gph for a 300 Gal). Big water changes can disturb the chemical balance of Saturn and potentially destroy the universeâ€¦ and under filtering is a sin.


----------



## imusuallyuseless (Dec 28, 2005)

Dammit, nutbag you've gone too far now!!!


----------



## Geeee (Apr 15, 2006)

:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## jordanroda (May 4, 2006)

My vote min. 55-60 gal for 1 Oscar.


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 15, 2005)

what were we talking about again?


----------



## imusuallyuseless (Dec 28, 2005)

...how many midgets it take to screw in a lightbulb??? Oops i mean little people


----------



## TheFishGuy (Apr 21, 2005)

800 minimum... um, that's ounces......


----------



## slickvic277 (Aug 20, 2006)

I think a 55 is really just to small,will it work sure but I've seen some big oscars in local fish stores in 55 gallon tanks and it made me not get an oscar for a 75 gallon tank. Can an oscar live a long healthy life in a 4' tank? Sure but why cram a fish in a tank its a third the size of mabey even a little closer to half(rare but possible).I just moved and when I start to get settled in and get some of my home improvment projects done I'm setting up a 6' tank for a severum and oscar but for now the 75 gallon tank is in retirement.My point is a 4' tank will work but a 6' is ideal.Just think everyone hates there first apartment tiny and stuffy it works but not ideal. 
Get the tank then the fish


----------

