# I have to ask this question



## gage (Feb 7, 2007)

This question has been bothering me for a long time now, and I need to ask, i need an answer.

to all of you who say an oscar can live in a 50 and a severum can not, why is this? Oscars grow to 14", whereas severums grow to an average of 8", though 12" is possible, plus the fact that oscars are much beefier then severums, yet so many people say oscars are fine in a 50 yet sevs are not.

what makes it ok to keep an oscar in a 50g tank compared to a severum? i need to know the answer to this question, it has bugged me ever since i joined this site, it isnt like the severum is much more active then the oscar at all, and that would be the only explanation i can think of.


----------



## remarkosmoc (Oct 19, 2005)

I don't think an oscar belongs in a 55....


----------



## dwarfpike (Jan 22, 2008)

I don't think an oscar belongs in only an 18" wide tank considering I've seen several at the 14" mark, plus 2+ inches for the tail. That is a seriously cramped fish.


----------



## lloyd (Aug 24, 2005)

i would suggest, that they are both capable of living as single wet pets in a 55, but i would consider to add a small power head to the severum option. IMO, singled cichlids do not demand space once they control a territory. it is the subdominant fish that demands space. so long as the keeper's system is capable of managing the environmental issues, then i see no reason why either of these two species would "need" more than that as singles. IMHO.


----------



## SinisterKisses (Feb 24, 2004)

An adult oscar should not be in anything less than a standard 75gal by itself, same as an adult severum (except a pair of sevs in a 75gal would be fine).


----------



## LJ (Sep 12, 2007)

> An adult oscar should not be in anything less than a standard 75gal by itself


Agreed. Although I am guilty of keeping one in a 55 in my newbie days, I would never do it again.


----------



## SinisterKisses (Feb 24, 2004)

Well, everyone's done stuff like that as a newbie, not knowing better. If you know better and do it anyway, then that's a whole different story.


----------



## DeadFishFloating (Oct 9, 2007)

Wow! I've never seen anyone suggest a 50 gal or 55 gal is an appropriate sized tank for an Oscar.

I think all the regulars know where I stand in such a discussion. I think from now on I'll just put this link into any such discussion, Oscar, Velvet Cichlid, and point people to this excert from the species profile;

*from Mongabay.com* 


> TANK: A tank measuring 30" (76 cm) with a capacity of 20-25 (75-98 L) gallons is sufficient for small individuals under 5" (13 cm) in length. Adult fish require a tank measuring at least 72" (183 cm) with a capacity of 100 gallons (378 L). The tank should have a deep substrate with some large rocks. Plants must be potted and robust with their stems and root protected with rocks. Arrange heaters so that they will not become unattached from the tank glass. The tank must have powerful filtration.


----------



## cichlidaholic (Dec 7, 2005)

gage, I've never heard any experienced hobbyist suggest putting an adult oscar in a "50"...


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 15, 2005)

Oscars have more mass per inch than Sevsâ€¦ therefore they produce more waste per inchâ€¦

Oscars commonly get 12â€


----------



## MidNightCowBoy (May 7, 2007)

A lot of people here frequently tell others that it is ok to keep large fish in too small of a tank. Remember that not everyone here is an expert or a very experienced fish keeper.

I always try to keep fish in my tanks that will have plenty of room, not some sort of minimum amount of space. I think doing that is cruel.


----------



## blairo1 (May 7, 2006)

O's are beefcake, 8) for want of a better word....

I wouldn't put a sev in a 50 so I certainly wouldn't even consider an Oscar as potential stock for this size tank. I've seen Golds get much beefier than I've seen of Rotties, and seeing how big my Rottie is in a 75, he'd be one unhappy bunny(fish) in anything smaller.

In my humble opinion, of course .


----------



## lloyd (Aug 24, 2005)

i respect (most of) the concerns, as to why i stand alone on this topic, but i cannot comprehend how an additional 15 gallons (from 50-75) would allow the consensus to swing 180 degrees. :-? 
although the oscar will be a messy option, for a keeper who misunderstands the intake=output logic of feeding, they do have a disposition that allows them to be quite content to hunker down in small spaces alone. i consider the severum to be an open water, riverine type fish, and therefore, in this particular comparison, might have a greater preference for more space. 
i know we all prefer to see big fish in big tanks, but pound for pound, a 12" fish in a 50 gallon tank is much easier to maintain, than the same tank with 20 2" fish. IMHE.


----------



## hey_wood1981 (Apr 7, 2004)

25 gallons, and most would say it has to do with the footprint.


----------



## gage (Feb 7, 2007)

in my 5ish years of being on forums i have heard waaaaaaaaaaay to many people say an oscar will live fine in a 50g, yet i have heard of very few people say a sev in a 50 will work ok, and i was curious as to what people had to say to this, i figured it would stimulate discussion, but it seems all the ones in favor of an oscar being in a 50g have not contributed.

to the guy that said 15g doesnt make a difference (which is actually 25g) it is the extra width that matters, not the gallons.


----------



## gage (Feb 7, 2007)

LJ said:


> > An adult oscar should not be in anything less than a standard 75gal by itself
> 
> 
> Agreed. Although I am guilty of keeping one in a 55 in my newbie days, I would never do it again.


i had 2 6" balas in a 35g, along with about 40 other fish  , wow i was dumb, my tank is over stocked now but nothing like that.


----------



## gage (Feb 7, 2007)

Toby_H said:


> Oscars have more mass per inch than Sevsâ€¦ therefore they produce more waste per inchâ€¦
> 
> Oscars commonly get 12â€


----------



## DeadFishFloating (Oct 9, 2007)

Occasionally (ok rarely) I will see a post and think that _xxxx_ is just wrong wrong wrong and not post my opinion. One such type of post is discussions about keeping _x_ sized fish in _y_ sized tank.

I am of the belief that some people just don't see how cramped a fish can be in a tank. Of course a large fish in a small tank is not going to move around much, simply becuase it doesn't have the room, doh.

As for *lloyds'* comment...


> although the oscar will be a messy option, for a keeper who misunderstands the intake=output logic of feeding, they do have a disposition that allows them to be quite content to hunker down in small spaces alone. i consider the severum to be an open water, riverine type fish, and therefore, in this particular comparison, might have a greater preference for more space.


That's totally BS. Oscars are riverine cichlids, found in just about all of the large waterways of Bolivia, Brazil and Peru. If you really want to discuss the habits of Oscars, jump over to The Cichlid Room Companion and visit thier SA forum and talk to a couple of the guys who have been fishing in Brazil and caught them on a Rod and Reel and they'll tell you that they're a great sports fishing fish, not quite up there with Peacock Bass, but certainly more so than a Sev.

They are a predator cichlid, that swims in cruise mode untill they target prey, then it's a burst of speed and gulp with that freakin big mouth of thiers.


----------



## lloyd (Aug 24, 2005)

opcorn: oscars are a lazy fish, content in still water, under roots/logs, and capable of only short bursts to ambush prey.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

DeadFishFloating said:


> That's totally BS. Oscars are riverine cichlids, found in just about all of the large waterways of Bolivia, Brazil and Peru. If you really want to discuss the habits of Oscars, jump over to The Cichlid Room Companion and visit thier SA forum and talk to a couple of the guys who have been fishing in Brazil and caught them on a Rod and Reel and they'll tell you that they're a great sports fishing fish, not quite up there with Peacock Bass, but certainly more so than a Sev.


I don't quite follow how the behavior of a fish on the end of a fishing line could be used to guess at it's behavior in the water without a hook in it's mouth.

I think you'd have to find some evidence that the Oscar had an active lifestyle under the water to refute Lloyd's observations of this fish in captivity.


----------



## remarkosmoc (Oct 19, 2005)

I would suspect the reason you've heard it is okay for an oscar many more times than a sev is because A) O's are more popular and thus get discussed more and B) A lot more newbies posting their 'advice' are oscar owners than sev owners (in other words there are more under informed oscar owners than severum owners)


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

I wonder if the Oscar's tolerances of dirty, low O2 water has contributed to the myth as well... 
a severum would likely croak long before an oscar in a small dirty and underoxygenated tank...


----------



## gage (Feb 7, 2007)

lloyd said:


> opcorn: oscars are a lazy fish, content in still water, under roots/logs, and capable of only short bursts to ambush prey.


of course they will be lazy if they are in a small tank, they have no choice, in a large tank they most certainly are not all that lazy... have you ever seen an oscar in a large tank before? they definitely do NOT just sit on the bottom and wait for food, that is the last thing i would see an oscar that isnt depressed doing.


----------



## gage (Feb 7, 2007)

Number6 said:


> I wonder if the Oscar's tolerances of dirty, low O2 water has contributed to the myth as well...
> a severum would likely croak long before an oscar in a small dirty and underoxygenated tank...


you bring up a good point, just because they are capable of living in small dirty tanks doesnt mean it should have to.


----------



## LJ (Sep 12, 2007)

> just because they are capable of living in small dirty tanks doesnt mean it should have to


And even if they survive longer than a sev would, they will almost surely develop HITH in these conditions.


----------



## Big Vine (Feb 26, 2007)

Ideally a bigger tank is better, of course.
But let me just throw this out there, for what it's worth...

MANY people visit and become members on these forums without having done their research ahead of time.
MANY of them have already gotten themselves into situations with large fish in relatively small tanks, and they are here seeking guidance. The last thing 'they' need is to be scared away by 'our' lofty expectations on how a fish should be housed under '_ideal_' circumstances.

I'm not saying it's okay to just pat them on the back and reward them with a trophy, but at the same time I don't think it's fair to jump all over them and make them run for the hills either!

Just something to think about...:wink:
BV


----------



## LJ (Sep 12, 2007)

> MANY people visit and become members on these forums without having done their research ahead of time.
> MANY of them have already gotten themselves into situations with large fish in relatively small tanks, and they are here seeking guidance. The last thing 'they' need is to be scared away by 'our' lofty expectations on how a fish should be housed under 'ideal' circumstances.


Thanks BV I agree, and I really wasn't trying to discourage 'they', even though that's how it may have come across. I've made similar pleas (to yours above) on here before. And as several of us have mentioned, most of us were once 'they'.


----------



## SinisterKisses (Feb 24, 2004)

gage said:


> lloyd said:
> 
> 
> > opcorn: oscars are a lazy fish, content in still water, under roots/logs, and capable of only short bursts to ambush prey.
> ...


Precisely. This is the EXACT same thing with bettas - people keep them in those STUPID cup-sized "betta bowls" and vases and say it's okay because bettas aren't active. That's absolute BULL. They aren't active when they're in tight spaces that don't allow them to be active. I keep my bettas in a minimum of 5gal each, and they are equally as active as any mbuna I've ever kept.

An Oscar in a tank that is way too small will be lethargic and "lazy" because it has no choice. Trying living your life in an average-sized bedroom, you would be pretty freaking "lazy" and inactive too.


----------



## Big Vine (Feb 26, 2007)

LJ said:


> Thanks BV I agree, and I really wasn't trying to discourage 'they', even though that's how it may have come across. I've made similar pleas (to yours above) on here before. And as several of us have mentioned, most of us were once 'they'.


Absolutely!
And I was speaking more in general terms in my earlier post, so please don't feel it was directed only at you. It's just something I thought all of us---myself included---could stand to be reminded of once in a while.
BV


----------



## LJ (Sep 12, 2007)

> And I was speaking more in general terms in my earlier post, so please don't feel it was directed only at you. It's just something I thought all of us---myself included---could stand to be reminded of once in a while.


 :thumb:


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 15, 2005)

I raised a few Oscars along with other Cichlids (including a Sev) in a 6â€™ round 300 gal Rubbermaid for several yearsâ€¦ The Oscars spent most of their time swimming in open areas of the tank, yet most of the other Cichlids spent most of their time hiding in/under/behind dÃ©corâ€¦

One of those Oscars now lives in a 125 gal with a pair of (Gold) Dempseys, female Trimac, pair of (W African) Jewels & a BGKâ€¦ the Oscar spends is the most active fish in the tankâ€¦

I would suggest that anyone who says, â€˜Oscars are lazy fish that just sit aroundâ€™ have not kept Oscars in large enough tanks 

My Signature reflects my feelings on thisâ€¦ but at the same time I understand that most people arenâ€™t going to keep massive tanks (at least not at first  )â€¦ but that doesnâ€™t make it okay to improperly house a fishâ€¦ instead it makes it â€œourâ€


----------



## lloyd (Aug 24, 2005)

lloyd said:


> opcorn: oscars are a lazy fish, content in still water, under roots/logs, and capable of only short bursts to ambush prey.


 i pulled these descriptive, of astronotus ocellatus, from http://www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/s ... php?id=531 after being accused of typing 'bs'. i apologize for trolling.
having kept, and cared for, a few of these fish over the years, i will continue to attest that they make good 'wet pets'. IMHO, 'wet pets' are the very luckiest of fish. they receive unprecedented care and commitment from their keeper. yes...they are often kept in modest enclosures, but the assumption, that this arrangement equals poor water quality, mopey fish faces, and HITH, is an unfair one. it's all about care. and i have witnessed as many examples, of abused fish kept in large tanks, as anyone here could find to refute my op that it cannot be done.
wet pets (a term I use to describe any large fish kept solo) will greet you every morning with the enthusiasm of a dog. they are hand fed. they have names. they play with their 'toys' (any tank decor they accept) and bang/tap the glass for attention. they make hand and eye contact. they greet unfamiliar faces with enthusiasm. the appear 'happy', and by their demeanor, receive more attention than any other fish in the room.
they receive water changes, as if they were breeding discus, and their tanks are pristine. water test kits are found beside their feed, right next to a bottle of conditioner, and never forgotten in cluttered cupboards. they are fully acclimated to tap water. they eat well, live good lives, are missed long after they have passed. most are buried in backyards under a plant chosen just for that ceremony.
i have kept oscar, a yellow severum, and a texas as wet pets in the past. my present wet pet, an otorongo stingray reaching 20" disc, is my present wet pet. his name is stinger. HTH.


----------



## cichlidaholic (Dec 7, 2005)

lloyd said:


> it's all about care.


That pretty well sums it up, IMO. :thumb:


----------



## MidNightCowBoy (May 7, 2007)

Big Vine said:


> Ideally a bigger tank is better, of course.
> But let me just throw this out there, for what it's worth...
> 
> MANY people visit and become members on these forums without having done their research ahead of time.
> ...


I think my issue I have on this forum (on occassion) isn't when someone has a problem, such as a large fish in a small tank, and is looking for advice on how to rectify it. I think it's great that they recognize a problem and are trying to solve it. My issue is when someone posts something like, "hey I just got a new 55 gallon and I'm thinking of keeping an Oscar, a Sev, and a JD in this tank, is that ok?' My reply is "All of those fish are too large for that tank once they are mature." Someone else chimes in "That will be fine and don't listen to this other poster (meaning me) because I've done exactly what you are doing before!"

So my point is sometimes the advice that people hand out can be poor.


----------



## Nathan43 (Jul 9, 2007)

My problem is when you show your HEALTHY fish for others to see and people start giving their opinions without you asking anything at all. Don't get me wrong, I have learned an unbelievable amount of info on this forum and the people are generally nice and considerate but sometimes the circumstances are a little out of hand. Think of it like this: A city has 20-30 stores that sell fish, each one has 10-20 pacus for sale. Lets say they sell at least 5% of them a month. Thats about 30-40 pacus monthly. Now, how many people really have a tank suitable for even 1 pacu? So, what happens to all these pacu's? On top of that, factor in the same situations for knifes, Midas, oscars, flowerhorns, veijas, plecos, catfish, etc? And the worst thing about this is that 80% of these fish are probably purchased for tanks between 20 & 55 gallons. I for one have a midas and a red devil as wet pets in 55's (temporary of course but still).


----------



## gage (Feb 7, 2007)

wow, i wasnt expecting this discussion to go this long, great discussion though!


----------



## lloyd (Aug 24, 2005)

gage said:


> wow, i wasnt expecting this discussion to go this long, great discussion though!


 yea, i agree. where did everybody go? i was just getting warmed up... opcorn: we didn't get to touch on space ratios of large fish that share large tanks, potential health benefits of zero aggression issues, the complications of diagnosing health issues within communities, restrictions of medicinal options for community set ups, etc...not to mention the fact, that when all these 'pundits' get a sick fish, they advocate quarantine tanks  to assure the best conditions for recovery.  
Nathan43: a friend of mine also keeps a red devil as a wet pet. his is named 'bumper' for his habit of charging the front glass with his forehead. he only does it when ignored. he is the largest, and most beautiful d if have ever seen. she recently moved him from a 40 to a 55 gal. not because the tank was difficult to maintain--she was concerned he could knock it over.


----------



## Nathan43 (Jul 9, 2007)

Thats funny, my male (Earl) figured out how to splash water out of the tank to get my attention. Afterwards, it just stares at me until I come to wipe it off. Very smart little booger, he seems to do it when I am cleaning the tank across from him...


----------



## phishes (May 17, 2005)

Toby_H said:


> I raised a few Oscars along with other Cichlids (including a Sev) in a 6â€™ round 300 gal Rubbermaid for several yearsâ€¦ The Oscars spent most of their time swimming in open areas of the tank, yet most of the other Cichlids spent most of their time hiding in/under/behind dÃ©corâ€¦
> 
> One of those Oscars now lives in a 125 gal with a pair of (Gold) Dempseys, female Trimac, pair of (W African) Jewels & a BGKâ€¦ the Oscar spends is the most active fish in the tankâ€¦
> 
> ...


----------



## lloyd (Aug 24, 2005)

phishes said:


> Large fish should have space to swim. My O is 13''and in a 75g now, and I feel like it is too small. He is very active and is constantly swimming back and forth. I really want to get him a 6' tank.


 i'm glad to hear you can keep him healthy, even though it's tank has restrictions. do you have any pictures? or better...details of the maintenance/filtration that has brought you to your obvious success with 'O' so far?


----------



## LiveFood (Dec 1, 2008)

Well here is my wetpet, he is Redhead cichlid, i bought him about 7 years ago and he has been living in the same tank for those 7 years, tank size is 4 foot long, not sure about the rest of the diemensions.

His name is BigBlue and he would appear happy he diggs and pushs rocks around, and pays alot of attention to people , dogs etc





I would really like to get him a bigger tank but i have serious doubts about the floor the tank is sitting on.

Btw im not sure what size he is (i think its a he) But he is very big


----------



## lloyd (Aug 24, 2005)

LiveFood said:


> His name is BigBlue and he would appear happy he diggs and pushs rocks around, and pays alot of attention to people , dogs etc.


 that is one beautiful example, of a big single fish, living the good life within a modest enclosure. congratulations to you, LiveFood. :thumb:


----------



## SinisterKisses (Feb 24, 2004)

Mmm, but think of how much nicer and happier he'd be in a proper-sized tank.


----------



## trimac (Mar 27, 2003)

OMG-some of you guys really switch your view points an awful lot-not about a year ago on this very forum I got flamed by everyone cause I thought a 55 gallon tank was too small for an Oscar-now all of a sudden everyone is saying the opposite. People here really change their minds quite frequently!


----------



## DeadFishFloating (Oct 9, 2007)

trimac said:


> OMG-some of you guys really switch your view points an awful lot-not about a year ago on this very forum I got flamed by everyone cause I thought a 55 gallon tank was too small for an Oscar-now all of a sudden everyone is saying the opposite. People here really change their minds quite frequently!


G'day Trimac,

I don't think anyone who thinks a 55 gallon is too small for an Oscar will have changed thier mind. I think it's more of a case where we now have more posters who think this is acceptable and aren't afraid to defend thier point of view. We have had a few such _"discussions"_ over the last 12 months on acceptable tank sizes for different fish, and quite possibly those who propose larger tanks are a little sick and tired of trying to get thier point accross.

For the record, minimum tank size I'd keep a single or pair of Oscars in would be a 6'x2'x2'. Hey, I keep a 2 pairs of dwarf acaras, app. 3" to 3.5" TL, each pair is in it's own 3'x18"x18" tank, and they are as happy as larry.


----------



## rogersb (May 21, 2007)

I don't keep these particular SA species, but I do read about them frequently and I have to agree with DFF that those people are not changing their minds about the size tanks they think the fish should be kept in, rather they are sick of saying it over and over again.

I have a friend with a 55 who keeps an oscar and her tank is clean, she feeds well, does proper water changes...still reminds me of a prison cell. Sure she keeps the conditions great, but is it enough room?


----------



## kerbchek (Apr 1, 2008)

I think it's good there are such discussions available for people to read. In the end, people will do what they're going to do. I've seen full grown Oscars kept for life in a 40 gallon tank... I didn't necessarily approve of it... but I saw it. It lived for many many years.

There's a pet store I've been to where they've had full grown Oscars (many of them, maybe 10-15 of them) for sale in 20 gallon tall tanks...  I think it's terrible... but think of the uneducated consumer who comes in off the street and sees that... they'll thinkn their 55 will be great for that fish, look at the little tank it's in now.

There's these cool little Oscars at PetSmart that are about 2 inches long... They'd be pretty tempting to buy... and SO MANY people believe that a fish will only grow to the size of the tank they're in... they might really believe that it won't get that big.

I've also wondered what's happened to all the Pacu's our local pet store sells... I think I know why there's so many of them in our local zoo...

I had two red bellied piranaha's in a 10 gallon tank when I was a kid  woops, won't do that again!! It's all about learning and I'm glad this forum is here. Please don't "just not post" when you don't agree with someone... someone else who reads it may think what the "wrong" poster suggests is correct. I've been reading forums for YEARS and know not to follow advice unless I've read it several different places... take things with a grain of salt... but I trust the advice I've gained here more than that learned in the big box pet store...


----------

