On the topic of Oscar nitrates

[pops]

you want to do that all good, but terms like a pinch, or several are not going to work, again these are a generalization. your pinch may dif from mine, your several may dif from mine. to make what you are asking work, exact measurements are required. and water temp, fish size, maintenance routine bla bla bla. not something I am going to do.

bottom line, I do not manage fish, I manage water quality, fish take care of them selves. Bassetman quote, not mine but true.

 

[convict360]

I think that common sense is a rare commodity these days. I also think that too many people in this hobby look for minimum standards, such as "what is the minimum size tank can I keep my fish in?", or "what are the minimum number of water changes, or minimum that I need to perform?"

........ instead of asking what is the optimum manner in which to keep my fish?


I don't personally feel that the info that you will gather is pointless, certainly not for you, and your tank and fish, but as previously stated for the most part there are too many variables involved to supply the general public with data that is going to be specific to their personal set up.

Generally speaking, the practical information that you will eventually glean is that in a tank that size, and that number, and species of fish, you will be performing large water changes on a weekly, or even biweekly basis, along with regular filter maintenance, or your water quality will decline and your Oscar will suffer from health issues over the long haul.

I guess I just thought that was kinda obvious, and as you earlier stated "simple stuff to a lot of people". You totally lost me when you stated that this was continually debated. What is continually debated?

From personal experience, and on the forums; I've seen plenty of differing opinions on just how much nitrates Oscars produce.

Yes, the overriding consensus is that they need massive water changes, but I know that if I was new to the hobby and somebody told me that information, I'd probably assume it to be exaggeration. I don't think I'd be alone in that either.

So even if one person considering oscar fish out there, see's this thread and realises "wow, Oscars really do create a s*it tonne of nitrate, this will help me decide on whether the fish is suitable for me", with nitrate results to match; is that so bad a thing.

Pops I never said this was an exact experiment or to make some definitive claim, i'm a general fishkeeper, obviously I can't control or even wish to control the various factors.

Lol, does this make sense? Outside opinion is welcomed, if the majority think this thread is harmful, then delete it by all means

 

[RD.]

It's all good, I didn't realize that there were actually people that didn't understand that big fish such as O's produce a LOT of waste as they mature.

Carry on .....

 

[pops]

never said harmful. quite the opposite, just not want folks to think what is good for your fish is good for theirs. All tanks are dif and need to be managed accordingly.

 

[pops]

and as a FYI, Oscars are not that messy if fed properly, the bio load comes from there mass. A mature Oscar is a long, thick and tall fish, more mass=more ammonia in the water in the way of respiration.

 

[qguy]

Would be nice if you can measure the weight of the food given as the fish grows so we can see the relation between increase on nitrates vs food provided

 

[justarn]

lol, people are so hung up on here, this is great info. imo there should be a wealth of threads like this for people to get information from and learn about specific bioloads. you lot live in the past, some hard evidence would be very informative and im certain convict 360 was not doing this to learn a minimum wc schedule rd, thats a bit presumptuous no? just because he is not running it like a scientific experiment doesnt means its a pointless thread at all, itsnot like his 6 inch oscar is going to eat 10x as much as the next one is it. a little more info maybe like how many times a day he is feeding, what and how much is being fed may be of use.

perhaps some of you could advise how to turn this thread into more beneficial information, maybe ive taken this out of your context but it seems you are all shooting the op down with your opinions once again turning a perfectly civil mfk topic into a playground argument.

i disagree that the results will vary as much as rd and pops are saying!?
if we are dealing with 2 responsible fish keepers who maintain their tanks to the highest standard with the same stock at the same size, same water volume, feeding a high grade pellet correctly/sparingly, netting out un-eaten food and having similar tap nitrates.
im not saying they will be within 1ppm obv but it wont be a million miles off.

and for the record in the southeast of the uk or tap water is 40ppm regularly and many people keep fish long term, some breed rays with 40ppm as a base. not ideal of course but its what we have to deal with without setting up ro systems.

 

[RD.]

FYI Justin, I was speaking in general, not to the OP directly in that portion of my comment. That was the only part of these types of topics that I ever see hotly debated on MFK, which is precisely why I mentioned it. I also didn't say that this topic is pointless.


Also, bio loads can & do vary greatly from set up to set up, but by all means agree to disagree on that matter. Just diet alone can have a major impact on water quality from one 90 gallon to the next, even with similar fish. It has nothing to do with being a responsible fish keeper.

Viewing comments based on decades of experience is hardly what I would consider a playground argument.

 

[pops]

this site and others, oscarfish.com, oscarfishlovers.com and others have plenty of well written articles on the matter along with lota of other info.

ask questions? by all means, but try making use of the articles that are available. 99% of what you are asking can be found there.

Just saying the wheel has already been invented, no reason to invent it again.

 

[keystonewma]

If you can keep variables low, and be consistent with the measurement interval, I think it would be interesting to many people to see the change over time. It may be overkill to do it on a weekly basis, but measuring just before the weekly water change and showing the results each month would be interesting to me. I know what is going to happen, but it would still be interesting.