Green Terror in 55-Gallon

[duanes]

Agree with Deadeye because
It's best to keep EBJDs alone, because they are generally a bit "wimpy" health wise, and kept in a tank with other fish, their health is often compromised.
They are a kind of man-made/line bred variant, so the need for a natural environment is not quite the requirement a wild type individual might do best in.

I think of a 55 gal as equivalent to the area of a truck rut in road, do you ever find fish such as cichlids living in such a tiny area?
Killifish, yes. Mosquitofish yes.
Below is a video of the kind of natural habitat where you find wild type JDs. Hardly the size of a rut in the road.
https://youtu.be/txmi1mng_XQ
And its not about what "we" want you to get.
Its about what is best, or sufficient for the individual species of fish.
I have seen 10" male JDs in nature, if kept in a tank as small as a 55, an individual like that might require 50% daily water changes to ward off HITH disease

 

[jjohnwm]

Notice a pattern forming here? No matter how many threads you start, asking the same question about the same tank...you end up getting the same answers! Funny how that works, huh?

Remember, you can keep an Oscar "for life" in a 10-gallon tank if you want to; it just won't be a long life, or a "happy" one or a healthy one. It would require a ridiculous amount of work on your part...read this as "insane number of water changes", and I'm talking multiple large changes per week...and as soon as you skip a change or two, disaster strikes, the cramped/stunted/unhealthy fish develops a handful of stress-related issues that result in its death...and thus you have, by definition, kept it "for life".

Congrats!

One of the greatest challenges in this hobby is self control, and learning to work within your limitations. Some folks learn this early on (after a few failures), others never seem to figure it out.

This ^ belongs on a bumper sticker or a T-shirt, or maybe tattooed in reverse on some people's foreheads so that they are forced to read it every time they look in a mirror.

Many years ago when I started off in the hobby, beginners typically started out with 5- or 10- or 20-gallon tanks, moved too fast, stuffed them with too many fish that were too large, and experienced disaster after disaster.

Today, the only thing that has changed is the scale. Too many beginners start with 50- or 100- or 200-gallon tanks, and think that these "massive" tanks are immune to the dangers of overcrowding and overfeeding and incomplete cycling ...and thus they experience disaster after disaster...

The only difference is the bigger disasters are more work to clean up.

 

[AR1]

silverarowanaboi. i am a teen just like you and i will share my fish keeping biography with you
1 year ago i bought a 7 inch id shark since i liked the colour patterns and movement, just like you (from your thread gusty mix 2.0 in which you bought oscar) brougth it home did some research and found out it is a schooling fish. bought three more and i kept them in a 120 gallon pond. without any further resaerch, i stocked the pond with 4 silver dollars, i raphael catfish, 1 oscar and 1 hornet cichlid. oscar died due to hornet's aggression. upon further research. i found out that the id's grow up to 4 feet. i was distressed. it had been 6 months of them living in the pond. so i moved them to a inflatable 6 foot intex pool, without doing any research. it was winter time and i set it out outside. at night i came to find my fishes floating lifelessy. i immediately transferred them back to the 120 gallon pond and they slowly began to move and swim regularly again. i had luckily saved them. after having numerous fights with my parents, i bought a 12 foot intex pool pond. tranferred the fishes in it. i was over the moon at having such a big pond. added a pacu and moray eel to it, without doing any research(again). soon i wasn't able to manage the pond and got my fishes infected. sadly, two id's passed away. I asked the shopkeeper whether i could house all these fishes in a three feet tank or not. he said "no problem" . i provided him with info on how big these fishes get, but he said it's all fake. my parents also managed to convince me into housing them into it. bougth the tank tranferred all the fishes into it (even without cycling it). soon my 4 SDs 1 hornet and eel died . despite that i kept them in the three foot tank. after 4 months, the pacu became huge and started to hit the tank which frightened my mom. then she gave me permission to setup the 12 foot pond again. this time i did my research and then setup the pond transferred all my fishes back again. Now they are happy. i also added a rtc to it.
during all of this, i was taking advice on MFK, just like you and decided to ignore it, which cost me a lot of my favourite dream fishes. i feel sorry for what i did and have learned my lesson. now i have become a successfull fish keeper. i would recommend that you STRICTLY follow the advice of these guys if you do not want to lose your fishes and waste your money

 

[FINWIN]

I might have mis spoke saying a GT in a 55, was thinking about a female or EBJD or EBAC. Everybody has good points here but sometimes ya gotta quit talking and just show the deal. Here's an oscar you've seen in other pics. Now see him in relation to a 225. If you think he'll fit in a 75 I'll sell you the Brooklyn Bridge and a bottle of snake oil. And he's only 4. Still growing (very slow).

 

[Matth05]

I’d listen to the advice given by these members. They know what they’re talking about. About two years ago I made the mistake of purchasing a Carpintis (grows to around the same size as a GT) and putting it in a 55. It wasn’t very long until that 55 seemed cramped. Upgraded to a 75, just to end up in the same situation even further down the line. This is exactly what I was told would happen by many of these same members. Ended up rehoming that Carpintis last year, wishing that I listened to their advice sooner.

 

[Deadeye]

I might have mis spoke saying a GT in a 55, was thinking about a female or EBJD or EBAC. Everybody has good points here but sometimes ya gotta quit talking and just show the deal. Here's an oscar you've seen in other pics. Now see him in relation to a 225. If you think he'll fit in a 75 I'll sell you the Brooklyn Bridge and a bottle of snake oil. And he's only 4. Still growing (very slow).

View attachment 1527421

Dang… I’ve never seen the fts. That fish is a tank!

 

[SilverArowanaBoi]

I might have mis spoke saying a GT in a 55, was thinking about a female or EBJD or EBAC. Everybody has good points here but sometimes ya gotta quit talking and just show the deal. Here's an oscar you've seen in other pics. Now see him in relation to a 225. If you think he'll fit in a 75 I'll sell you the Brooklyn Bridge and a bottle of snake oil. And he's only 4. Still growing (very slow).

View attachment 1527421

Honestly, I would never agree that an Oscar your size would be okay in anything smaller than what you have it in. But...your Oscar is exceptionally large compared to many. I've never in my life seen an Oscar that big (and I've seen MANY Oscars in public aquariums that have twice the tank size as that).

 

[SilverArowanaBoi]

As for the rest of the comments...I understand and see your points; I will analyze and compare them extensively.

I have a clear maximum limit in mind for fish in my tank, but I don't know everyone else's maximum limit. I learned various limits from various people, but I think this particular version makes sense; here it is: If the fish can turn around comfortably in the tank without the head or tail touching the sides, then the tank size is okay. I measured the width of my tank, which is about a foot long; I can push 11 if I want to, but my fish size limit is 10 inches, leaving plenty of space for a fish to turn around comfortably.

Could everyone else tell me their maximum fish size limit for a 55-gallon? That would help me more than debating what type of fish is appropriate because stating specific species is harder. There will be a different answer from everyone. At least half of y'all would say that a GT would be fine in a 55-gallon, but another half would say no less than 75. If I could get an average for the maximum size from everyone, then maybe I can work from that and find a fish that would be okay long-term in my tank.

 

[SilverArowanaBoi]

Of course you do. Lol Yes a GT can go in a 55, as can an Oscar in a 75, or a Red Devil in similar cramped conditions. I'm quite certain all of those scenarios have played out millions of times over the years. I've certainly seen my share. But before you rush out and do something based on a single somewhat supportive comment, re-read Deadeye 's comment above a few times, and perhaps the lesson some kind folks are attempting to teach you will sink in.

Good luck

Based on one comment, I don't plan on rushing out to get a fish; I've never been that type of person. I prefer looking over everything said, even If I disagree with it, and then making my decisions. I have allowed myself plenty of time to make my decision. I'm not returning to the fish store for more fish until December 10th, 3 months from now.

 

[FINWIN]

Honestly, I would never agree that an Oscar your size would be okay in anything smaller than what you have it in. But...your Oscar is exceptionally large compared to many. I've never in my life seen an Oscar that big (and I've seen MANY Oscars in public aquariums that have twice the tank size as that).

Tank size changes how big a fish looks but that's just optics. When I was in school there was a public aquarium at the U.S. Commerce department. They had monstrous Oscars, 17 and 18 inch behemoths tall as dinnerware plates. They were pretty old though, 10+. When they get big like that their color grays out and looks faded with age. And they move s-l-o-w and get a jowly look. At the time I didn't know anything about Oscars, they were just big fish on display.

I would say any fish best size comes down to these factors:

Genetics. Some Oscars max at 12 no matter what. A runt might max at 10. Some will be standard 14 and some will be giants, 16-18. Nothing you can do about this.
Care. Water changes!!! More fresh water, more growth.
Tank size. Brick was raised in the 225. I don't doubt it contributed to his size potential. A one time he grew over 2" a month but then stalled at 11" for a bit. He was also a big baby. The bigger they get the slower they grow...that's why the monsters are always old.
Good food and nutrition
stimulating environment

And for people that say "I grew a 13 inch oscar in a 75" I've yet to see it. Assuming they aren't lying I'd say the sucker should be 15" in a proper tank.


Sometimes you're so used to seeing stunted or young fish the full size can be startling. Pet stores pretty much sell baby fish. Some oscar varieties I hear grow smaller than the standard oscar but someone else can chime in on that.