It is well known that Socrates sketches, through his similes of the sun, line, and cave, an account of the form of the good in the middle books of the Republic and that this conception of the good relies heavily on his theory of forms. What is less well-noted is that Socrates presents a distinct account of goodness - a functional account - in Republic I. In numerous influential articles, Gerasimos Santas has presented an interpretation of Plato's two (...) theories of goodness and their relationship to one another. In this discussion, I argue that Santas's account cannot be correct. My critique has implications with regard to the issue of the relationship between form and function in Plato's metaphysics of value. (shrink)

This essay considers the role of the soul in Plato’s political philosophy. Contra Gerasimos Santas, I offer a reading of Republic 8 which takes Plato’s criticism of the democratic soul as his criticism of the psychological pressures innate in the democratic constitution. On this account, democracy fails because it encourages unnecessary appetites. These appetites breed anarchy and ignorance under the guise of freedom. Section two reviews Santas reading of the Republic and his interpretation of Plato’s treatment of (...) democratic principles: private property, knowledge, and freedom. Section three provides a reading which takes the soul into consideration. Reading the descent to democracy and the birth of the democratic man as indicative of the pressures of the democratic system, we gain insights into the psychology of democracy. (shrink)

Regarding the relation of Plato’s early and middle period dialogues, scholars have been divided to two opposing groups: unitarists and developmentalists. While developmentalists try to prove that there are some noticeable and even fundamental differences between Plato’s early and middle period dialogues, the unitarists assert that there is no essential difference in there. The main goal of this article is to suggest that some of Plato’s ontological as well as epistemological principles change, both radically and fundamentally, between the early and (...) middle period dialogues. Though this is a kind of strengthening the developmentalistic approach corresponding the relation of the early and middle period dialogues, based on the fact that what is to be proved here is a essential development in Plato’ ontology and his epistemology, by expanding the grounds of development to the ontological and epistemological principles, it hints to a more profound development. The fact that the bipolar and split knowledge and being of the early period dialogues give way to the tripartite and bound knowledge and benig of the middle period dialogues indicates the development of the notions of being and knowledge in Plato’s philosophy before the dialogues of the middle period. -/- Keywords Plato; early dialogues; middle dialogues; being; knowledge; development -/- Introduction The differences between two groups of the early and middle period dialogues have always been a matter of dispute. Whereas the developmentalists like Vlastos, Silverman (2002), Teloh (1981), Dancy (2004) and Rickless (2007) think that from the early to the middle dialogues Plato’s philosophy changes, at least in some essential points, the unitarists like Kahn, Cherniss and Shorey believe that there happens no development and the differences must be taken as natural, ignorable and even pedagogic. In his well-known article, Socrates contra Socrates in PLATO, Vlastos lists ten theses of difference between two groups of dialogues. The first group which includes Plato’s early dialogues he divides to 'elenctic' (Apology, Charmides, Crito, Euthyphro, Gorgias, Hippias Minor, Ion, Laches, Protagoras and Republic I) and 'transitional' (Euthydemus, Hippias Major, Lysis, Menexenus and Meno) dialogues. These transitional come after all the elenctic dialogues and before all the dialogues of the second group which compose Plato’s middle period dialogues, including (with Vlastos' chronological order) Cratylus, Phaedo, Symposium, Republic II-X, Phaedrus, Parmenides and Theaetetus (1991, 46-49). Vlastos asserts strictly that his list of differences are 'so diverse in content and method that they contrast as sharply with one another as with any third philosophy you care to mention, beginning with Aristotole’s' (ibid, 46). Vlastos’ list of differences between two Socrateses is considered a view breaking sharply between the early and the middle dialogues. Besides all ten differences between the two Socrateses in Vlastos’ list that can be supportive for our doctrine here, we intend to focus on some ontological as well as epistemological distinctions that have not completely been discussed hitherto. Contrary to the developmentalist theory of Vlastos, unitarian theory of Charles Kahn wishes to eliminate any substantial difference between the early and the middle dialogues. He distinguishes seven 'pre-middle' or 'threshold' dialogues including Laches, Charmides, Euthyphro, Protagoras, Meno, Lysis and Euthydemus from the other Socratic dialogues which he calls 'earliest group' (1996, 41). The threshold dialogues, Kahn thinks, 'embarke upon a sustained project' that is to reach to its climax in the middle period dialogues, namely Phaedo, Symposium and Republic. Believing in that there is no 'fundamental shift'between the early and middle dialogues (ibid, 40), Kahn thinks the Socratic dialogues are just the 'first stage' with a 'deliberate silence' towards the theories of later periods (ibid, 339). One of the reasons of the surprising fact that Plato gives no hint of the metaphysics and epistemology of the Forms in the early dialogues, he thinks, is the pedagogical advantages of aporia. He thinks that Plato 'obscurely', and mostly because of education, hinted to some doctrines and conceptions in his early dialogues and with the aim of clarifying them only in the later ones (ibid, 66). The seven threshold dialogues, Kahn asserts, 'had been designed from the first' to prepare the pupils and readers for the views expounded in the middle period dialogues (ibid, 59-60). To show that the differences of the two Socrateses of the early and middle period dialogue are in their onto-epistemological grounds and thence cannot be explained by a unitaristic view, we try to draw the ontological and epistemological principles of the early dialogues in the first part below in order to show, in the second part, that those principles have been developed in the middle period dialogues. -/- A. The Onto-Epistemologic Principles of the Early Dialogues Socratic dialogues are paradoxical about knowledge because while being knowledge-oriented always searching for knowledge, they deny it and even never discuss it directly. Three elements of Socrates’ way of searching Knowledge throughout the early dialogues, i.e. Socratic 'what is X?' question, his disavowal of knowledge and his elenctic method combined together produce something like a circle which works, more or less, in the same way in these dialogues. Though this circle is an embaressing inquiry always resulting in ignorance instead of knowledge, its motivation is surprisingly Socrates’ passionate enthusiasm for knowledge, an intensive love of wisdom. The starting point of this circle is Socrates’ confession of having no knowledge which might be explicitly asserted or presupposed, maybe because it was one of the famous characteristics of Socrates; a confession always paradoxically accompanied with his intense longing for knowledge (e.g., Gorgias 505e4-5). Every time Socrates encounters with someone who thinks he knows something (οἴεταί τι εἰδέναι) (Apology 21d5) and tries to examine him. This examination seems to be the simplest one asking just what it is that he knows. Socrates’ elenchus, therefore, is always connected with 'what is X?' (τίς ποτέ ἐστιν) question, a question that most of the early dialogues of Plato are concerned with; 'what is courage?' in the Laches, 'what is piety?' in Euthydemus, 'what is temperance?' in Charmides and 'what is beauty?' in Hippias Major. This question we call here 'Socratic question' and probably is the very question the historical Socrates used to employ, is tightly interrelated with both his disavowal and his elenchus. He disclaims knowledge because he cannot find the answer to the question himself and he rejects others’ since they cannot offer the correct answer too. Every interlocutor can claim he knows X, if and only if he can answer the Socratic question. Otherwise, he is more of an ignorant than of a knower of τί ποτέ ἐστι X. Knowing the answer to this question is, thus, knowledge’s criterion for Socrates. Having found out that he cannot answer what it is which he would claim to know, the interlocutor comes to the point Socrates was there at the beginning. The least advantage of this circle is that he becomes as wise as Socrates does about the subject, becoming aware that he does not know it. At the end of the circle they are both still at the beginning, not knowing what X is. So let us first take a glance at these three elements. Socratic disavowal of knowledge is strictly asserted in some passages. At Apology 21b4-5, Socrates says: -/- I do not know of myself being wise at all (οὔτε μέγα οὔτε σμικρὸν σύνοιδα ἐμαυτῷ σοφὸς ὤν) -/- Moreover, at 21d4-6: -/- None of us knows anything worthwhile (καλὸν κἀγαθὸν εἰδέναι) …. I do not know (οἶδα) neither do I think I know. -/- In Charmides Socrates speaks about a fear about his probable mistake of thinking that he knows (εἰδέναι) something when he does not (166d1-2). The somehow generalization of this disavowal can be seen in Gorgias. After calling his disavowal 'an account that is always the same' (509a4-5), Socrates continues (a5-7): -/- I say that I do not know (οἶδα) how these things are, but no one I have ever met, like now, who can say anything else without being absurd. -/- At the end of Hippias Major (304d7-8), Socrates affirms his disavowal of knowledge of 'what is X?' this time about the fine: -/- I do not know (οἶδα) what that is itself (αὐτὸ τοῦτο ὅτι ποτέ ἐστιν). Some other passages, however, made a number of scholars dubious about Socrates’ disavowal. Vlastos mentions Apology 29b6-7 as an evidence : 'that to do wrong and to disobey one’s master, both god and men, I know (οἶδα) to be evil and shameful'. He thinks that if we give this single text 'its full weight' it can suffice to show that Socrates does claim knowledge of a moral truth (1985, 7). Vlastos’ claim is not admittable since it would be too strange, I think, for a man like Socrates to violate his disavowal claim just after emphasizing it. We can see his claim just before the already mentioned passage: -/- And surely it is the most blameworthy ignorance to believe that one knows what one does not know. It is perhaps on this point and in this respect, gentlemen, that I differ from the majority of men and if I were to claim that I am wiser than anyone in anything it world be in this, that, as I have no adequate knowledge (οὐκ εἰδὼς ἱκανῶς) of things in the underworld, so I do not think I have (οὐκ εἰδέναι) (Apology 29b1-6) Vlastos tries to solve what he calls the 'paradox' of Socrates’ disavowal of knowledge distinguishing the 'certain' knowledge from 'elenctic' knowledge (1985, 11) and thinking that when Socrates avows knowledge, we must perceive it as an elenctic knowledge, a knowledge its content 'must be propositions he thinks elenctically justifiable' (ibid, 18). Irwin’s solution is the distinction of knowledge and belief. He approves that Socrates does not 'explicitly' make such a distinction, but still thinks that Socrates’ 'test for knowledge would make it reasonable for him to recognize true belief without knowledge, and his own claims are easily understood if they are claims to true belief alone' (1977, 40). While I agree with Vlastos up to a point, I strongly disagree with Irwin about the early dialogues. As I will try to show below, we are not permitted to consider any kind of distinction within knowledge in Socratic dialogues because only one category of knowledge is alluded to there and the distinction of knowledge and belief thoroughly belongs to the second Sorcates. Although no kind of distinction can be admittable here, I think Vlastos’ distinction can be accepted only if we regard it as a distinction between knowledge, which is unique and without any, even incomparable, rival, and a semi-idiomatic and ordinary one that is a necessary requirement for any argument, and thus, unavoidable even for someone who does not claim any kind of knowledge. An apparent evidence of this is Gorgias 505e6-506a4: -/- I go through the discussion as I think it is (ὡς ἄν μοι δοκῇ ἔχειν), if any of you do not agree with admissions I am making to myself, you must object and refute me. For I do not say what I say as I know (οὐδὲ γάρ τοι ἔγωγε εἰδὼς λέγω ἃ λέγω) but as searching jointly with you (ζητῶ κοινῇ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν). -/- The minimal degree of knowledge everyone must have to take part in an argument, conduct it and use the phrase "I know" when it is necessary is what Socrates cannot deny. We can call it elenctic knowledge only if we agree that it is not the kind of knowledge that Socrates has always been searching, the one that can be accepted as the answer of Socratic 'what is X?' question. His disavowal of knowledge is applied only to the knowledge which can truly be the answer of Socratic question and pass the elenctic exam; a knowledge that, I believe, is never claimed by first Socrates. Socrates conducts his method of examining his interlocutors’ knowledge, our second element here, by almost the same method repeated in Socratic dialogues. That whether we are allowed to regard all the examinations of Socrates in the early dialogues as based on the same or not has been a matter of dispute. Vlastos himself (1994, 31) distinguished Euthydemas, Lysis, Menexenns and Hippias Major from the other Socratic dialogues because he thinks Socrates has lost his faith to elenchus in there. Irwin (1977, 38) distinguishes Apology and Crito where Socrates’ own convictions is present. Contrary to some scholars like Benson (2002, 107) who take elenchus in all the Socratic dialogues as a unique method, Michelle Carpenter and Ronald M. Polansky (2002, 89-100) argue pro the variety of methods of elenchus. Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith (2002, 145-160) even reject such a thing as Socratic elenchus which can gather all of the Socrates’ various arguments under such a heading. There can be no solution for the problem of elenchus, they think, is due to 'the simple reason that there is no such thing as 'the Socratic elenchos"'(p.147). Though we consider elenchus a somehow determined process and a part of Socratic circle in the early dialogues, all we assume is that whatever differences it might have in different dialogues, it has the same onto-epistemological principles and, thus, we are not going to take it necessarily as a unique method. This method sets out to prove that the interlocutors are as ignorant as Socrates himself is. That whether elenchus is constructive, capable of establishing doctrines as Vlastos (1994) or Brickhouse and Smith (1994, 20-21) believe or not is another issue to which this paper is not to claim anything. What is crucial for our discussion here is that elenchus does not reach to the very knowledge Socrates is looking for. This is strictly against Irwin who thinks that not only elenchus leads to positive results, 'it should even yield knowledge to match Socrates’ conditions'(1977, 68, cf. 48). He does not explain where and how they really yield to that kind of knowledge. He explains his elenctic method in his apology in the court (Apology 21-22), that how he used to examine wise men, politicians, poets and all those who had the highest reputation for their knowledge and every time found that they have no knowledge. If we accept, as I strongly do, that Socrates’ disavowal of his knowledge is not irony, it might seem more reasonable to agree that the process that has that disavowal as its first step cannot be irony as well. The key of the circle which can explain why Socrates disclaims knowledge and how he can reject others’ claim of having any kind of knowledge lies in the third element, Socratic question. In Hippias Major (287c1-2), Socrates asks: 'Is it not by Justice that just people are Just? (ἆρ᾽ οὐ δικαιοσύνῃ δίκαιοί εἰσιν οἱ δίκαιοι). He insists at 294b1 that they were searching for that by which (ᾧ) all beautiful things are beautiful (cf. b4-5, 8). At Euthyphro 6d10-11 it is said that the Socratic question is waiting for 'the form itself (αὐτὸ τὸ εἶδος) by which (ᾧ) all the pious actions are pious; and at 6d11-e1: -/- Through one form (που μιᾷ ἰδέᾳ) impious actions are impious and pious actions pious. -/- Since the X itself is that by which X is X, knowing 'X itself' is the only way of knowing X. It is probably because of this that Socrates makes the distinction between the ousia as a right answer to the question and effect as a wrong one: -/- I am afraid, Euthyphro, that when you were asked what piety is (τὸ ὅσιον ὅτι ποτ᾽ ἐστίν) you did not wish to make clear its nature itself (οὐσίαν … αὐτοῦ) to me, but you said some effect (πάθος) about it. (Euthp. 11a6-9) -/- 1. Knowledge of what X is Now it is time to look for the onto-epistemological principles of Socratic circle and its three elements. It cannot reasonably be expected from the first Socrates to present us explicitly and clearly formulated principles of his onto-epistemology when such explications cannot be found even in the second Socrates who has some obviously positive theoris. Since there must be some principles underlying this first systematic inqury of knowledge, we must seek to them and be satisfied with elicitation of the first Socratas’ principle. What will be drawn out as his principles cannot and must not, thus, be taken as very fix and dogmatic principles. Some very slightest principles and grounds suffice for our purposes here. The first principle that is the prima facie significance of the Socratic question and his implementation of all those elenctic arguments I call the principle of 'Knowledge of What X is' (KWX): -/- KWX To know X, it is required to know what X is. -/- Aristotle (Metaphysics 1078b23-25, 27-29, 987b4-8) takes Plato’s τί ἐστι question as seeking the definition of a thing that is the same as historical Socrates’ search but applying to a different field. That Plato’s 'what is X?' question was a search for definition became the prevailed understanding of this question up to now. I am going neither to discuss the answer of Socratic question nor to challenge taking it as definition. What I am to insist is that knowledge is attached firmly to the answer of the question: Knowledge of X is not anything but the knowledge of what X is. It entails, certainly, the priority of this knowledge to any other kind of knowledge about X but it also has something more fundamental about the relation of knowledge and Socratic question. Socrates’ exclusive focus on the answer of his question can authorize the consideration of such an essential role for KWX in his epistemolgoy. The total rejection of his interlocutors’ knowledge when they are unable to answer the question can be regarded as a strong evidence for it. Socrates’ elenctic method and his rejection of others’ knowledge in the early dialogues, which all end aporetically with no one accepted as knower and nothing as knowledge, prevent us from finding any positive evidence for this. We have to be content, therefore, of negative evidences which, I think, can be found wherever Socrates rejects his interlocutors’ knowledge when they are not able to give an acceptable answer to his 'what is X?' question. 2. Bipolar Epistemology Socrates’ rejection of his interlocutors’ knowledge has another epistemological principle as its basis. Let me call this principle Bipolar Epistemology' (BE): BE There is no third way besides knowledge and Ignorance. -/- BE says that about every object of knowledge there are only two subjective statuses: knowledge and Ignorance. Socrates’ disavowal, however, says nothing but that he is ignorant of knowledge of X because he does not know what X is. This means that BE is presupposed here. Socrates’ elenchus and his rejection of interlocutors’ having any kind of knowledge are the necessary results of the fact that he does not let any third way besides knowledge and ignorance. The first Socrates never let anyone partly know X or have a true opinion about it, as he would not let anyone know anything about X when he did not know what X is. -/- 3. Bipolar Ontology The principle of BE in first Socrates’ epistemology is parallel to another principle in his ontology. Plato’s bipolar distinction between being and not being is as strict and perfect as his distinction between knowledge and ignorance. This principle I shall call the principle of 'Bipolar Ontology' (BO): BO Being is and not being is not. BO is apparently the same with the well-known Parmenidean Principle of being and not being (cf. Diels-Kranz (DK) Fr. 2.2-5). Euthydemus’ statement against the possibility of false knowledge can be good evidence for this principle: -/- The things which are not surely do not exist (τὰ δὲ μὴ ὄντα … ἄλλο τι ἢ οὐκ ἔστιν). (Euthydemus 284b3-4) -/- He continues (b4-5): -/- There is nowhere for not being to be there (οὖν οὐδαμοῦ τά γε μὴ ὄντα ὄντα ἐστίν). -/- That BE does not let true opinion as a third option besides knowledge and ignorance seems to be related to BO’s rejecting a third option besides being and not being, which is itself the basis of the impossibility of false belief. Socrates’ elaborate discussion of the problem of false belief in Theatetus that leads to a more decisive discussion and finally to some solutions in Sophist can make our consideration of BO for the first group of dialogues authentive. -/- 4. &5. Split Knowledge and Split Being The fourth principle I shall call the principle of 'Split Knowledge' (SK): -/- SK Knowledge of X is separated from any other knowledge (of anything else) as if the whole knowledge is split to various parts. -/- This Principle is hinted and criticized as Socrates’ way of treating with knowledge in Hippias Major: -/- But Socrates, you do not contemplate the entireties of things, nor do people you have used to talk with (τὰ μὲν ὅλα τῶν πραγμάτων οὐ σκοπεῖς, οὐδ᾽ ἐκεῖνοι οἷς σὺ εἴωθας διαλέγεσθαι). (301b2-4) -/- Contrary to Rankin who regards the passage as 'antilogical, almost eristic in tone rather than presenting a serious philosophy of being' (1983, 54), I think it can be taken as serious. Hippias criticizes Sorcates that he does not contemplate (σκοπεῖς) the entireties of things (ὅλα τῶν πραγμάτων), a critique which Socrates is not its only subject but all those whom Socrates accustomed to talk with (ἐκεῖνοι οἷς σὺ εἴωθας διαλέγεσθαι). This last phrase, I think, extends this critic beyond this dialogue to other Socratic dialogues. Hippias’ use of the perfect tense of the verb ἔθω (to be accustomed) is a good evidence of this extension. We can get, thus, these ἐκεῖνοι as Socrates’ interlocutors in his other dialogues that hints that this criticism has the epistemological groundings of the previous dialogues as its subject. What ἐκεῖνοι οἷς σὺ εἴωθας διαλέγεσθαι points to is that Hippias does not have in mind Socrates’ way of treating things only in this dialogue, but he is also criticizing Socrates’ way throughout his dialogues. At 301b4-5, Socrates and his interlocutors’ way of beholding things is described as such: -/- You people knock (κρούετε) at the fine and each of the beings (ἕκαστον τῶν ὄντων) by taking each being cut up in pieces (κατατέμνοντες) in words (ἐν τοῖς λόγοις). This leads us to our next principle that is parallel to, and the ontological side of, SK, the principle of 'Split Being'(SB): -/- SB Everything (being) is separated from any other thing as if the whole being is split to many beings. -/- Socrates and his interlocutors and thus, as we saw, the Socratic dialogues are accused to regard everything as it is separated from all other things. This separation is en tois logois that, I think, can reasonably be taken as saying that Socratic dialogues (it refers of course to the dialogues before Hippias Major) cut up all things which have the same name/definition from all other things and try to understand them separately, without considering other things that are not in their logos. They, for example in Hippias Major, are cutting up to kalon and try to understand what it and all others inside this logos are by separating it from all other things. This is directed straightly against Socratic question and the way Socratic dialogues follow to find its answer, every time separating one logos. As Meyer (1995, 85) points out, every question 'presupposes that the X in question in a logos is something' and 'every answer to every question aims at unity' (84). The critique of Hippias Major is, therefore, at the same time a critique of SK and SB. It is also a critique of KWX because it is only based on KWX that Socratic dialogues could search for the answer of 'what is X' question supposing that knowing what X is is enough for the knowledge of X. SK and KWX are absolutely interdependent. What Socrates and all his previous interlocutors have neglected in Socratic dialogues, Hippias says, was 'continuous bodies of being' (διανεκῆ σώματα τῆς οὐσίας) (301b6). Either this theory actually belongs to the historical Hippias as it is being said or not, it is strictly criticizing SB. We have the same phrase with changing sūma to logos some lines later at 301e3-4: διανεκεῖ λόγῳ τῆς οὐσίας. Although this theory that can be observed as both an ontological and an epistemological theory is rejected by Socrates (301cff.), it is still against first Socrates’ onto-epistemological principles and might let us look at what is rejected as Socratic prineple. -/- 6. Knowledge is of Being The sixth principle that I think is presupposed by the first Socrates, is the 'Knowledge of Being' Principle (KB): -/- KB Knowledge is of Being. -/- This principle is obviously the source of the problem of false knowledge, a very important problem throughout Plato’s philosophy. We face this problem maybe for the first time in Euthydemus. In less than 20 Stephanus’ pages, 276-295, we are encountered with different interwoven problems about knowledge , all grounded in the problem of false opinion. Having challenged the obvious possibility of telling lies at 283e, at 284 Euthydemus discusses it saying that the man who speaks is speaking about 'one of those things that are (ἓν μὴν κἀκεῖνό γ᾽ ἐστὶν τῶν ὄντων)' (284a3) and thus speaks what is (λέγων τὸ ὄν) (a5). He must necessarily be saying truth when he is speaking what is because he who speaks what is (τὸ ὄν) and the things that are (τὰ ὄντα) speaks truth (τἀληθῆ λέγει) (a5-6). This is based on Parmenidean principle of the impossibility of being of not being which Euthydemus restates (284b3-4) and we mentioned discussing BO principle above. The things that are not are nowhere (οὐδαμοῦ) and there is no possibility for anyone to do (πράξειεν) anything with them because they must be made as being before anything else can be done, which is impossible (b5-7). The words, then, are of things that exist (εἰσὶν ἑκάστῳ τῶν ὄντων λόγοι) (285e9) and as they are (ὡς ἔστιν) (e10). The result is that no one can speak of things as they are not. It is this impossibility of false speach that is extended to thinking (δοξάζειν) at 286d1 and leads to the impossibility of false opinion (ψευδής … δόξα) (286d4). The general conclusion is asserted at 287a extending this impossibility to actions and making any kind of mistake. Not only knowledge is of being but speech, thought and action are of being simply because of the fact that nothing can be of not being. -/- B. First Socrates’ Principles in the Middle Period Dialogues Out of what were presupposed or criticized mostly in five dialogues, Euthyphro, Euthydemus, Hippias Major, Laches and Charmides, we tried to draw the first Socrates’ principles. Our inquiry here is directed to find out the fate of these principles in the three dialogues of the middle period, Meno, Phaedo and Republic. To do this, first we ought to check the situation of Socratic circle in these dialogues. The Socratic circle that was predominant in the early dialogues, does not look like a circle here anymore though they certainly have some features in common. Meno, Phaedo and Republic II-X are not committed to the principles of the circle and the whole circle in disrupted in them. The difference of the two Socrateses towards acquiring knowledge is obvious. The Socrates of Meno, Phaedo and Republic is evidently more self-confident that he can get to some truths during his arguments as he does. They are in their first appearance, as almost all other dialogues, committed to Socrates’ disavowal. All of them try to keep the shape of the Socratikoi Logoi genre, which is committed to the historical Socrates’ way of discussion; a dramatic personage who is to challenge his interlocutors, ask them and refuse the answers. Nevertheless, the fact is that what we have in common between two groups of dialogues is mostly a dramatic structure. Whereas the first group’s arguments are based on Socrates’ disavowal and lead to no positive results, the second group is decisively going to achieve some positive results. The aim of the first Socrates was to show others that they are ignorant of what they thought they knew. The new Socrates of Meno, on the opposite, makes so much efforts to show that the slave boy has within himself true opinions (ἀληθεῖς δόξαι) about the things that he does not know (οἶδε) (85c6-7). Despite his lack of knowledge, he has true opinions nevertheless. The way from these true opinions to knowledge, as Socrates states, is not so long. These true opinions are now like a dream but 'can become knowledge of the same things not less accurate than anyone’s' (οὐδενὸς ἧττον ἀκριβῶς ἐπιστήσεται περὶ τούτων) (c11-d1), if they be repeated by asking the same questions. The most outstanding text regarding Socrates’ disavowal is Meno 98b where he explicitly claims knowledge: -/- And indeed I also speak as (ὡς) one who does not know (εἰδὼς) but is guessing (εἰκάζων). However, [about the fact] that true opinion and knowledge are different, I do not altogether expect (δοκῶ) myself to be guessing (εἰκάζειν), but if I say about anything that I know (εἰδέναι) -which about few things I say- this is one of the things that I know (οἶδα). (98b1-5) This passage is very significant about Plato’s disavowal of knowledge. There can hardly be found, I think, anywhere else in Plato’s corpus where Socrates speaks about his knowledge of something as such. He says first that he speaks as someone who does not know. This ὡς οὐκ εἰδὼς λέγω comparing with what he used to say in the first group, οὐκ οἶδα, has this added ὡς. Socrates does not claim strongly anymore that he does not know anything but speaks only as someone who does not know. He needs this ὡς not only because he is going to accept that he does know some, though few, things immediately after this sentence, but also because he needs his previous disavowal to be loosened from Meno on. He does not merely say here that he knows something. It is then different from the examples mentioned before which could be taken as idiomatic or at least not emphatic. Socrates’ remarkable emphasis on distinguishing εἰδέναι from εἰκάζειν departs it from all other passages where he says only he knows something. Moreover, he claims definitely that he has knowledge about few (ὀλίγα) things. From the early to the middle dialogues, Socrates’ attitude to knowledge has totally renewed its face. He brings forth a new concept, true opinion, and he does not speak of knowledge as he used to before; the rough, perfect and unachievable knowledge of the first group has turned to something more smooth, realistic and achievable. Comparing with the early dialogues that did not set out from the first to reach positive results, the middle ones are extraordinarily and surprisingly positive and hence destroy the basis of the Socratic circle. The questions and answers are purposely directed to some specific new theories; most of them are not directly related to the topics or the main questions of the dialogues. They are suggested when Socrates draws the attention of the interlocutor away from the main question because of the necessity of another discussion. Even if the main question remains unanswered, we have still many positive theories, prominently of metaphysical type. These theories are so abundant and dominant in these dialogues, especially Phaedo and Republic, that one might think that they may appear to be arbitrarily sandwiched in there. This helps dialogues to keep their original Socratic structure while they are suggesting new theories. Hence, the Socratic question of 'what is X?', though is still used to launch the discussion, is loosened and is forgotten for most part of the dialogues. Meno that has first a differently formulated question, 'can virtue be taught?', leads finally to the Socratic question of 'What is virtue?'. Phaedo is dedicated to the demonstration of the immortality of soul and the life after death without having a central Socratic question. The case of Republic is more complicated. The first book, on the one hand, has all the criteria of a Socratic circle: its 'what is justice?' question, Socrates’ strong disavowal (e.g. 337d-e), his rejection of all answers and coming back to the first point without finding out any answer. This Book, considered alone, is a perfect Socratic dialogue, as many scholars regard it as early and separated from other books. The books II-X are, on the other hand, far from implementing a Socratic circle. They have still the 'what is justice?' question as their incentive leading question, but they are, in most of the positive doctrines and methods that encompass the main parts, ignoring the question. Even these books that, I believe, are the farthest discussions from the Socratic circle are so cautious not to break the Socratic structure of the dialogue as long as it is possible. What is changed is not the structure of the dialogue but the ontological and epistemological grounds based on which new theories are suggested. -/- 1. Knowledge of the Good We can clearly see in the second group of dialogues that the KWX principle loses the place it had before in our first group. It is not, of course, rejected, but still we cannot say that it has the same situation. KWX that was based on Socratic question, as we discussed before, was the leading principle of the first Socrates’ epistemology and of the highest position. Other epistemological principles, SK directly and BE indirectly, were relying on Socratic question and therefore on KWX. Such a position does not belong to KWX from Meno on. What makes it different in the second Socrates is another principle that is needed it not only as its complementary principle but also as what is more fundamental. Plato, then, does not reject KWX in this period, but, it seems, he transcends to another more basic principle; a principle we shall call the principle of 'Knowledge of the Good' (KG): -/- KG Knowledge of X requires knowledge of the Good. -/- Whereas all the dialogues of our first group are free from any discuscon about KG, it bears a very important role in the second group so as becomes the superior principle of knowledge in Republic. Trying to solve the problem of teachability of virtue, Socrates says that it can be teachable only if it is a kind of knowledge because nothing can be taught to human beings but knowledge (ἐπιστήμην) (Meno 87c2). The dilemma will be, then, whether virtue is knowledge or not (c11-12) and since virtue is good, we can change the question to: whether is there anything good separate from knowledge (εἰ μέν τί ἐστιν ἀγαθὸν καὶ ἄλλο χωριζόμενον ἐπιστήμης) (d4-5). Therefore, the conclusion will be that if there is nothing good which knowledge does not encompass, virtue can be nothing but knowledge (d6-8). What let us discuss KG as an epistemological principle for the second Secrates is the relation he tries to establish between knowledge and the Good which, though is alongside with the mentioned thesis and the idea of virtue as knowledge, goes much deeper inside epistemology asking to regard the Good as the basis of knowledge. The effort of Phaedo cannot succeed in establishing the Good as the criterion of explanation and knowledge since, I think, it needs a far more complicated ontology of Republic where Socrates can finally announce KG. What is said in Republic is totally compatible with Phaedo 99d–e and the metaphor of watching an eclipse of the sun. In spite of the fact that we do not have adequate knowledge of the Idea of the Good, it is necessary for every kind of knowledge: 'If we do not know it, even if we know all other things, it is of no benefit to us without it' (505a6-7). The problem of our not having sufficient knowledge of the Idea of Good is tried to be solved by the same method of Phaedo 99d-e, that is to say, by looking at what is like instead of looking at thing itself (506d8-e4). It is this solution that leads to the comparison of the Good with sun in the allegory of Sun (508b12-13). What the Good is in the intelligible realm corresponds to what the sun is in the visible realm; as sun is not sight, but is its cause and is seen by it (b9-10), the Good is so regarding knowledge. It has, then, the same role for knowledge that the sun has for sight. Socrates draws our attention to the function of sun in our seeing. The eyes can see everything only in the light of the day being unable to see the same things in the gloom of night (508c4-6). Without the sun, our eyes are dimmed and blind as if they do not have clear vision any longer (c6-7). That the Good must have the same role about knowledge based on the analogy means that it must be considered as a required condition of any kind of knowledge: -/- The soul, then, thinks (νόει) in the same way: whenever it focuses on what is shined upon by truth and being, understands (ἐνόησέν), knows (ἔγνω) and apparently possesses understanding (νοῦν ἔχειν). (508d4-6) -/- Socrates does not use agathon in this paragraph and substitutes it with both aletheia and to on. He links them with the Idea of the Good when he is to assert the conclusion of the analogy: -/- That which gives truth to the objects of knowledge and the power of knowing to the knower, you must say, is the Idea of the Good: being the cause of knowledge and truth (αἰτίαν δ᾽ ἐπιστήμης οὖσαν καὶ ἀληθείας) so far as it is known (ὡς γιγνωσκομένης μὲν διανοοῦ). (508e1-4) Knowledge and truth are called goodlike (ἀγαθοειδῆ) since they are not the same as the Good but more honoured (508e6-509a5). KG, which had been implicitly contemplated and searched in Phaedo, is now explicitly being asserted in Republic. As what was quoted clearly proves, this principle is the very one which we can observe as the most fundamental principle of the second Socrates in Republic, corresponding to the role KWX had in the first Socrates. The Form of the Good in Republic, of which Santas speaks as 'the centerpiece of the canonical Platonism of the middle dialogues, the centerpiece of Plato’s metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and …' (1983, 256) much more can be said. Plato’s Cave allegory in Book VIII dedicates a similar role to the Idea of the Good. The Idea of the Good is there as the last thing to be seen in the knowable realm, something so important that its seeing equals to understanding the fact that it is the cause of all that is correct and beautiful (517b). Producing both light and its source in visible realm, it controls and provides truth and understanding in the intelligible realm (517c). -/- 2. Tripartite Epistemology BE is thoroughy rejected in the second Socrates and substituted by its opposite, the principle of 'Tripartite Epistemolgy' (TE): -/- TE Opinion is an epistemological status between knowledge and ignorance. BE of the first Socrates was denying any third way besides knowledge and ignorance which was the foundation of Socratic circle without which Socrates could not reject his interlocutors’ possessing any kind of knowledge. We cannot say, however, that the first Socrates had a third epistemological status in mind but rejected it. Such a status was unacceptable for him so that one can say that he would reject any kind of such status if suggested. There were only two possibilities about knowledge: either one knows something or he does not know it. TE, thus, was not the first Socrates’ discovery and, I think it is not the second Socrates’discovery. All we can see in our second group of dialouges is that he uses this principle as an already demonstrated one. Having examined the slave boy in Meno for the prupose of showing the working of recollection, it truns out that he has some opinions in him while he still does not know. Without trying to prove it, Socrates takes this as the distinction between knowledge and opinion: -/- So, he who does not know (οὐκ εἰδότι) about what he does not know (περὶ ὧν ἂν μὴ εἰδῇ) has within himself true opinions (ἀληθεῖς δόξαι) about the same things he did not know (περὶ τούτων ὧν οὐκ οἶδε) (85c6-7). -/- The same distinction is set between ὀρθὴν δόξαν and ἐπιστήμην at 97b5-6 ff. (also cf. 97b1-2: ὀρθῶς μὲν δοξάζων … ἐπιστάμενος). He connects then their difference to the myth of Daedalus, the statue that would run away and escape. So are true opinions, not willing to remain long in mind and thus not worthy until one ties them down by αἰτίας λογισμῷ (98a3-4). Socrates says that this tying down is anamnesis. We face, in Phaedo, the same relation is settled between knowledge as the process of being tied down and getting the capability to give an account, on the one hand, and anamnesis, on the other hand. When a man knows, he must be able to give an account of what he knows (Phaedo 76b5-6) and since not all people are able to give such an account, those who recollect, recollect what once they learned (76c4). Although the distinction between knowledge and opinion is not explicitly used in Phaedo, referring to the parallel link between knowledge plus account and anamnesis in Phaedo and Meno, one can say that those who cannot recollect are not able to give account and, thus, are in a state of opinion. What is said at Phaedo 84a, though not yet a definite distinction between knowledge and opinion, makes a distinction between their objects so as we can agree that it is presupposed. The soul of the philosopher, Socrates says, follows reason, stays with it forever and contemplates the divine, which is not the object of opinoin (ἀδόξαστον) (84a8, cf. Meno 98b2-5). The distinction of knowledge and belief in Republic has a significant difference with what we discussed in Meno and Phaedo since the distinction of Meno was based on anamnesis and thus more an epistemological distinction. Even in Phaedo that we do not have any elaborate discussion about the distinction, the only hint to the matter at 76 is bound to the theory of anamnesis. In addition to the relation of the distinction with this theory, there is another evidence that does not permit us to consider the distinction as an ontological distinction. Let’s see Meno 85c6-7: -/- So, he who does not know about what he does not know has within himself true opinions about the same things he did not know (τῷ οὐκ εἰδότι ἄρα περὶ ὧν ἂν μὴ εἰδῇ ἔνεισιν ἀληθεῖς δόξαι περὶ τούτων ὧν οὐκ οἶδε). (85c6-7) -/- This last sentence persists that the objects of knowledge and true opinion are the same. What Socrates is to say here is that whereas he does not know X he has true opinion about the same X. I think Socrates’ sentence that the slave boy οὐκ εἰδότι ἄρα περὶ ὧν ἂν μὴ εἰδῇ and his restatement of it by saying περὶ τούτων ὧν οὐκ οἶδε is because he wants to emphasize that the slave boy who does not know, has true opinion about the same thing. Socrates could say this just with using τούτων and there would be no necessity to bring περὶ ὧν ἂν μὴ εἰδῇ for οὐκ εἰδότι if he did not want to emphasize. -/- 3. Tripartite Ontology The distinction between knowledge and true opinion in Republic, on other side, has nothing to do with recollection, but is based on an ontological principle, 'Tripartite Ontology' (TO): -/- TO There are things that both are and are not. -/- This principle I confine, among our three dialogues of the second group, to Republic not extended to Meno and Phaedo, is obviously the opposite of BO. Speaking about the lovers of sights and sounds in the fifth book, Socrates distinguishes them from philosophers because their thought is unable to understand the nature of beautiful itself besides beautiful things (476a6-8) and hence they can only have opinions. The philosopher who, on the contrary, believes in beautiful itself and can distinguish it from beautiful things (476c9-d3), has knowledge because he knows, contrasting others who have opinion because they only opine (d5-6). Since those whose knowledge were degraded as opinion will complain about Socrates’ such calling their thought, he provides them the following argument (476e7-477b1): -/- - Does the person who knows, knows (γιγνώσκει) something (τὶ) or nothing (οὐδέν)? - He knows something (τί). - Something that is (ὂν) or is not (οὐκ ὄν)? - Something that is (ὂν) for how could something that is not be known (πῶς γὰρ ἂν μὴ ὄν γέ τι γνωσθείη)? - Then we have an adequate grasp of this: No matter how many ways we examine it, what completely is (παντελῶς ὂν) is completely knowable (παντελῶς γνωστόν) and what is in no way (μὴ ὂν δὲ μηδαμῇ) is in every way unknowable (πάντῃ ἄγνωστον). - A most adequate one. - Good. Now, if anything is such as to be and also not to be (ὡς εἶναί τε καὶ μὴ εἶναι), won’t it be intermediate (μεταξὺ) between what purely is (εἰλικρινῶς ὄντος) and what in no way is (μηδαμῇ ὄντος)? - Yes, it’s intermediate. - Then as knowledge (γνῶσις) is set over what is (τῷ ὄντι), while ignorance (ἀγνωσία) is of necessity set over what is not (μὴ ὄντι) mustn’t we find an intermediate between ignorance (ἀγνοίας) and knowledge (ἐπιστήμης) to be set over the intermediate, if there is such a thing? -/- From the third status of being we must reach to the third status of knowledge. The simple reading of this text can be an existential reading, taking the "is" of the mentioned sentences as existence. The problem is that when it is said that there is something that both is and is not reading "is" existentially, it sounds too bizarre to be acceptable. It cannot easily be understandable to have something as both existent and non-existent at the same time. This problem arose so many debates and led many scholars to reject the existential reading of "is" and suggest some other readings like predicative or veridical readings. I think though Plato’s complicated ontology of Republic cannot be correctly understood by a simple existential reading, this "is" cannot be free from existential sense of being and, thus, cannot be reduced to just a predicative or veridical sense of being. -/- 4. Bound Knowledges In addition to KG, the Good is also the basis of another principle in the second Socrates, namely the principle of 'Bound Knowledge' (BK): -/- BK Knowledge of everything is bound to the knowledge of the Good. -/- We distinguished BK from KG because we want to insist, in BK, on what had not been insisted upon in KG, that is, the binding role that the Good plays in the second Socrates, contrasting the absence of such a role in the first Socrates. Socrates remembers, in Phaedo, his wonderful keen on natural philosophers' wisdom when he was young. The origin of this enthusiasm was Socrates’ hope to know the cause of everything as they used to claim. When he was searching the matters of his interest on their basis, Socrates says, he became convinced he can get no acceptable answer from them and found himself blind even to the things he thought he knew before. One day he hears Anaxagoras’ theory that 'it is Mind that arranges and is the cause of everything (ὡς ἄρα νοῦς ἐστιν ὁ διακοσμῶν τε καὶ πάντων αἴτιος)' (Phd. 97c1-2 cf. DK, Fr.15.8-9, 11-12, 12-14) and thinks that he can finally find what he has always expected, i.e. something which can explain all things. What I intend to show here is that what makes Socrates hopeful is that Anaxagoras’ theory tries 1) to explain all things by one thing and 2) this explanation is understood by Socrates as if it is based on the concept of the Good. That Socrates was searching for one explanation for all things can be proved even from what he has been expecting from natural philosophers. The case is, nonetheless, more clearly asserted when he speaks about Anaxagoras’ theory. In addition to διακοσμῶν τε καὶ πάντων αἴτιος of 97c2 mentioned above, we have τὸ τὸν νοῦν εἶναι πάντων αἴτιον (c3-4) and τόν γε νοῦν κοσμοῦντα πάντα κοσμεῖν (c4-5) all emphasizing on the cause of all things (πάντα) which can clearly prove that one of the reasons which caused Socrates to embrace it delightfully was its claim to provide the cause of all things by one thing. Another reason was that Anaxagoras’ Mind, at least in Socrates’ view, was attempting to explain everything by the concept of the Good. This connection between Mind and Good belongs more to the essential relation they have in Socrates’ thinking than Anaxagoras’ theory because there are almost nothing about such a relation in Anaxagoras. The reason for Socrates’ reading can be that Mind is substantially compatible with Socrates’ idea of the relation between good and knowledge. Both the thesis 'no one does wrong willingly' and the theory of virtue as knowledge we pointed to above are evidences of this essential relation. Nobody who knows that something is bad can choose or do it as bad. The reason, when it is reason, that means when it is as it should be, when it is wise or when it knows, works only based on good-choosing. In this context, when Socrates hears that Mind is considered as the cause of everything, it sounds to him like this: good should be regarded as the basis of the explanation of all things. We see him, thus, passing from the former to the latter without any proof. This is done in the second sentence after introducing Mind: -/- I thought that if this were so, the arranging Mind would arrange all things and put each thing in the way that was Best (ὅπῃ ἂν βέλτιστα ἔχῃ). If one then wished to find the cause of each thing by which it either perishes or exists, one needs to find what is the best way (βέλτιστον αὐτῷ ἐστιν) for it to be, or to be acted upon, or to act. On these premises then it befitted a man to investigate only, about this and other things, what is the most excellent (ἄριστον) and best (βέλτιστον). The same man must inevitably also know what is worse (χεῖρον), for that is part of the same knowledge. (97c4-d5) This passage is a good evidence of Socrates’ leap from Anaxagoras’ Mind to his own concept of the Good that can explain why Socrates found Anaxagoras theory after his own heart (97d7). Mind is welcomed because of its capability for explanation on the basis of good to 'explain why it is so of necessity, saying which is better (ἄμεινον), and that it was better (ἄμεινον) to be so' (97e1-3). What Socrates thought he had found in Anaxagoras can indicate what he had been expecting from natural scientists before. Socrates could not be satisfied with their explanations because they were unable to explain how it is the best for everything to be as it is. It can probably be said, then, that it was the lack of the unifying Good in their explanation that had disappointed him. We must insist that we are discussing what Socrates thought that Anaxagoras’ theory of Mind should have been, not about Anaxagoras’ actual way of using Mind. Phaedo 97c-98b, is not about what Socrates found in Anaxagoras but what he thought he could find in it. On the contrary, it should also be noted that it was not this that was dashed at 98b, but Anaxagoras’ actual way of using Mind. It was Anaxagoras’ fault not to find out how to use such an excellent thesis (98b8-c2, cf. 98e-99b). Socrates gives an example to show how not believing in 'good' as the basis of explanation makes people be wanderers between different unreal explanations of a thing. His words δέον συνδεῖν (binding that binds together) as a description for the Good we chose as the name of BK principle: They do not believe that the truly good and binding binds and holds them together (ὡς ἀληθῶς τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ δέον συνδεῖν καὶ συνέχειν οὐδὲν οἴονται). (99c5-6) -/- Having in mind Plato’s well-known analogy of the sun and the Good at Republic 508-509, we can dare to say that his warning of the danger of seeing the truth directly like one watching an eclipse of the sun in Phaedo (99d-e) is more about the difficulty of so-called good-based explanation than its insufficiency, a difficulty which is precisely confirmed in Republic (504e-505a, 506d-e). Moreover, BK is asserted in a more explicit way in the Republic, where the Good is considered not only as a condition for the knowledge of X, as was noted above discussing KG, but also as what binds all the objects of knowledge and also the soul in its knowing them. At Republic VI, 508e1-3, when Socrates says that the Form of the Good 'gives truth to the things known and the power to know to the knower (τοῦτο τοίνυν τὸ τὴν ἀλήθειαν παρέχον τοῖς γιγνωσκομένοις καὶ τῷ γιγνώσκοντι τὴν δύναμιν ἀποδιδὸν)', he wants to set the Good at the highest point of his epistemological structure by which all the elements of this structure are bound. This binding aspect of the Good is by no means a simple binding of all knowledges or all the objects of knowledge, but the most complicated kind of binding as it is expected from the author of the Republic. The kind of unity the Good gives to the different knowledges of different things is comparable with the unity which each Form gives to its participants in Republic: as all the participants of a Form are united by referring to the ideas, all different kinds of knowledge are united by referring to the Good. If we observe Aristotle's assertion that for Plato and the believers of Forms, the causative relation of the One with the Forms is the same as that of the Forms with particulars (e.g. Metaphysics 988a10-11, 988b4), that is to say the One is the essence (e.g., ibid, 988a10-11: τοῦ τί ἐστὶν, 988b4-6: τὸ τί ἢν εἶναί) of the Forms besides his statement that for them One is the Good (e.g., ibid, 988b11-13) the relation between the Good and unity may become more understandable. Since the quiddity of the Good (τί ποτ᾽ ἐστὶ τἀγαθὸν) is more than discussion (506d8-e2), we cannot await Socrates to tell us how this binding role is played. All we can expect is to hear from him an analogy by which this unifying role is envisaged, the sun. The kind of unity that the Good gives to the knowledge and its objects in the intelligible realm is comparable to the unity that the sun gives to the sight and its objects in the visible realm (508b-c). The allegory of Line (Republic VI, 509d-511), like that of the Sun, tries to bind all various kinds of knowledges. The hierarchical model of the Line which encompasses all kinds of knowledge from imagination to understanding can clearly be considered as Plato’s effort to bind all kinds of knowledges by a certain unhypothetical principle. The method of hypothesis starts, in the first subsection of the intelligible realm, with a hypothesis that is not directed firstly to a principle but a conclusion (510b4-6). It proceeds, in the other subsection, to a 'principle which is not a hypothesis' (b7) and is called the 'unhypothetical principle of all things' (ἀνυποθέτου ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ παντὸς ἀρχὴν) (511b6-7). This παντὸς must refer not only to the objects of the intelligible realm but to the sensible objects as well. Plato does posit, therefore, an epistemological principle for all things, a principle that all things are, epistemologically, bound and, thus, unified by. -/- 5. Bound Beings The ontological aspect of BK we shall call the principle of 'Bound Beings' (BB): -/- BB Being of all things are bound by the Good. -/- We saw in our principle of Split Being (SB) how the first Socrates was criticized because of his approach to split being and separate each thing from other things. The principle of Bound Beings intends to make the things more related, a duty which is done again by the Good. In the allegory of Sun, there are two paragraphs that evidently and deliberately extend the binding role of the Good to the ontological scene: -/- You will say that the sun not only makes the visible things have the ability of being seen but also coming to be, growth and nourishment. (509b2-4) -/- This clearly intends to remind the ontological role the sun plays in bringing to being all the sensible things in order to display how its counterpart has the same role in the intelligible realm (b6-10): -/- Not only the objects of knowledge (γιγνωσκομένοις) owe their being known (γιγνώσκεσθαι) to the Good, but also their existence (τὸ εἶναί) and their being (οὐσίαν) are due to it, though the Good is not being but superior to it in rank and power. That the Good is here represented as responsible for being of things in addition to their being known means, in my opinion, that Plato wants to posit BB in addition to BK. The allegory of Cave at the very beginning of the seventh Book (514aff.) can be taken as another evidence. The role of the Good, one might say, is confined to the intelligible realm because it is asserted that the role the Good plays in this realm is corresponding to that of the sun in the visible realm. The fact that Plato wants to observe the Good also as the ontological cause of the sensible things is obvious from his saying, in the allegory of Cave, that the Form of the Good 'produces light and its source (τὸν τούτου κύριον) [i.e. the sun] in the visible realm' (517c3). We can conclude, then, that the ontological function of the Good is not confined to the intelligible realm in which it is the lord and provides truth and understanding (c3-4) because it is also responsible to produce τὸν κύριον of light. 6. Proportionality of Being and Knowledge Insofaras BE and BO principles of the first Socrates gave way to TE and TO principles of the second Socrates, we cannot expect him to preserve KB in the same way as it was in the first Socrates. The new tripartite ontology and epistemology necessitates some modifications in KB which results in the principle of 'Proportionality of Being and Knowledge' (PBK): -/- PBK To every class of being there is a proportionate category of knowledge. -/- This principle, of course, does not entail the refutation of KB and thus is not kind of rejecting PBK but only a more complicated version of it. Based on PBK, we can still agree that knowledge is of being (KB) but the issue is that since none of the concepts of knowledge and being in the second Socrates are as simple as they were for the first Socrates, we need a more complicated principle for their relation here. Although from Meno 97a where the distinction of knowledge and true opinion is drawn out in the second group of the dialogues, we can expect a new relation, it is articulated in its most complete way in Republic and specifically in the allegory of Line. All the beings are divided there hierarchically to four classes, to each of them belongs a class of knowledge: imagination to images, belief to the sensible things (more correctly: the things of which they[in previous class] were images (ᾧ τοῦτο ἔοικεν)), thought to mathematical objects (?) and understanding to the Forms and the first principle. The degree of clarity that each of the classes of knowledge shares in (σαφηνείας ἡγησάμενος μετέχειν) is proportionate to the degree that its object shares in truth (ἀληθείας μετέχει). (511e2-4) -/- Conclusion From the six onto-epistemilogical principles of the first Socrates, four principles turn to their opposite in the middle period dialogues. While bipolar epistemology and ontology of the early dialogues give place to tripartite epistemology in the middle period dialogues and tripartite ontology in Republic, the split knowledge and being of the first Socrates are inclined to be substituted by bound knowledges and bound beings in the second Socrates and specifically in Republic. Not all our system of principles in this article is necessarily determinative. Either they are rightly formulated or not, our result would not be vulnerable if we accept that 1) making the distinction of knowledge and belief, 2) accepting the being of not being and 3) trying to bind both being and knowledge by the concept of the Good happens only in middle period dialogues, having been absent in the early ones. These are the favourite results all those somehow arbitrary and even oversimplified principles were to illustrate; that there is kind of a development in the epistemological as well as the ontological grounds of Plato’s philosophy. -/- Notes . (shrink)

Sheep production is the most representative livestock activities in Brazil and in the world. However, the reproductive performance of these animals is determined by factors genetic, physical environment, management and, especially, nutritional. Thirty half-breed lambs from Dorper × Santa Inês were used, with initial weight and age of 31.87 ± 0.5 kg and 157 days, respectively. These animals were prepared on a diet with three food levels (ad libitum, 30% and 70%). Morphometric measurements were measured at intervals of 16 to (...) 20 days in 56 experimental days. The measurements performed were scrotal circumference (CE), chest circumference (CT), body condition score (ECC), withers height (AC) and scrotal bag thickness (EBE), body weight (CP) and semen collection. Interaction occurrence for biometric measurements between food levels and age (p <0.05). The TC and ECC values were higher in animals fed ad libitum (p <0.001). EBE had higher values in animals ad libitum and at 211 days of age (p <0.001). The CP was increasing for the animals ad libitum and (p <0.05) throughout the experiment, while the T30 was only in the initial period. T70 animals did not grow during the whole experiment. CE was influenced by diet (p <0.001) and age (p <0.001) independently. So that animals under food restriction had less development and was higher in older animals. The AC values were influenced only by age (p <0.001), demonstrating the effect of age growth. We conclude that it is not advantageous to submit lambs, it corrects food reproduction. Although it was not possible to assess whether initial malnutrition would bring future problems for the animal's seminal quality, it proved to be immensely negative for the onset of puberty and the development of reproductive structures. -/- REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS AKUMBUGU, F. E., et al. Correlation between Body and Testicular Biometric Characteristics of West African Dwarf Rams. Multidisciplinary Advances in Veterinary Science. 2.4, 2018 ALLAOUI, A. et al. Factors affecting scrotal measurements and weight of Ouled Djellal rams in Eastern and South-eastern Algeria. APCBEE procedia, v. 8, p. 260-265, 2014. ALVES, J. M. et al. Estação de nascimento e puberdade em cordeiros Santa Inês. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, v. 35, n. 3, p. 958-966, 2006. ALVES, K. S. et al. Níveis de energia em dietas para ovinos Santa Inês: características de carcaça e constituintes corporais. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, v. 32, n. 6, p. 1927-1936, 2003. BIELLI, A. et al. Low maternal nutrition during pregnancy reduces the number of Sertoli cells in the newborn lamb. Reproduction, Fertility and Development, v. 14, n. 6, p. 333-337, 2002. BROWN, D. C.; STIRLING, H. F.; KELNAR, C. J. H. Precocious puberty. Paediatrics and Child Health, v. 4, n. 3, p. 184-188, 1994. BUDAI, C. Performance and adaptability of the Dorper sheep breed under Hungarian and Romanian rearing conditions. Scientific Papers Animal Science and Biotechnologies, v. 46, n. 1, p. 344-349, 2013. CARNEIRO, P. L. S. et al. Desenvolvimento ponderal e diversidade fenotípica entre cruzamentos de ovinos Dorper com raças locais. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, v. 42, n. 7, p. 991-998, 2007. CARRIJO JUNIOR, O. A. et al. Morphological evaluation of the testicles of young santa Inês rams submitted to different regimes of protein supplementation and drenching. Ciência animal brasileira, Goiânia, v. 9, n. 2, p. 433-441, abr./jun. 2008. CASTRO, F.A.B. de et al. Desempenho de cordeiros Santa Inês do nascimento ao desmame filhos de ovelhas alimentadas com diferentes níveis de energia. Semina: Ciências Agrárias, v. 33, n. 6 supl 2, p. 3379-3388, 2012 CEZAR, M. F. et al. Avaliação de parâmetros fisiológicos de ovinos Dorper, Santa Inês e seus mestiços perante condições climáticas do trópico semi-árido nordestino. Ciência e Agrotecnologia, v. 28, n. 3, p. 614-620, 2004. CHACÓN, L. et al. Características de la pubertad en corderos de pelo y sus cruces en Colombia en condiciones de baja altitud. Revista MVZ Cordoba, v. 24, n. 1, p. 7099-7103, 2019. CHEMINEAU, P. et al. Training manual on artificial insemination in sheep and goats. Rome: FAO; 1991. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Comportamento Sexual dos Animais Domésticos. 2020. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Fisiologia do ciclo estral dos animais domésticos. Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva, 2021. Da Silva EIC. Formulação de ração para ovinos. 1ª ed. Belo Jardim, PE: IPA, 2021. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Puberdade e Estacionalidade Reprodutiva dos Animais. 2020. FAO. Animal Production and Health Paper, v. 83. ELMAZ, Ö. et al. Prediction of postpubertal reproductive potential according to prepubertal body weight, testicular size, and testosterone concentration using multiple regression analysis in Kıvırcık ram lambs. Turkish journal of veterinary and animal sciences, v. 32, n. 5, p. 335-343, 2008. JUCÁ, A. F. et al. Performance of the Santa Ines breed raised on pasture in semiarid tropical regions and factors that explain trait variation. Tropical animal health and production, v. 46, n. 7, p. 1249-1256, 2014. FOURIE, P. J. et al. Scrotal, testicular and semen characteristics of young Dorper rams managed under intensive and extensive conditions. Small Ruminant Research, v. 54, n. 1-2, p. 53-59, 2004. GUNN, R. G.; SIM, D. A.; HUNTER, E. A. Effects of nutrition in utero and in early life on the subsequent lifetime reproductive performance of Scottish Blackface ewes in two management systems. Animal Science, v. 60, n. 2, p. 223-230, 1995. HÖTZEL, M. J. et al. Morphometric and endocrine analyses of the effects of nutrition on the testis of mature Merino rams. Reproduction, v. 113, n. 2, p. 217-230, 1998. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE). Produção Pecuária municipal. Rio de Janeiro, v. 46, p.1-8, 2018. KENYON, P. R.; MALONEY, S. K.; BLACHE, D. Review of sheep body condition score in relation to production characteristics. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, v. 57, n. 1, p. 38-64, 2014. KHERADMAND, A.; BABAEI, H.; ALI BATAVANI, R. Effect of improved diet on semen quality and scrotal circumference in the ram. Veterinarski arhiv, v. 76, n. 4, p. 333-341, 2006. KORKMAZ, M. K.; EMSEN, E. Growth and reproductive traits of purebred and crossbred Romanov lambs in Eastern Anatolia. Anim. Reprod., v. 13, n. 1, p. 3-6, 2016. KRIDLI, R. T. et al. Age at puberty and some biological parameters of Awassi and its first crosses with Charollais and Romanov rams. Italian journal of animal science, v. 5, n. 2, p. 193-202, 2006. LOUW, D. F. J.; JOUBERT, D. M. Puberty in the male Dorper sheep and Boer goat. S. Afr. J. Agric. Sci, v. 7, p. 509-520, 1964. MAIA, A. S. C.; SILVA, R. G.; ANDRADE, P. C. Efeitos da temperatura e da movimentação do ar sobre o isolamento térmico do velo de ovinos em câmara climática. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, v. 38, n. 1, p. 104-108, 2009. MARTINS, R. D. et al. Avaliação da sazonalidade reprodutiva de carneiros Santa Inês criados no Distrito Federal. R. Bras. Zootec., Viçosa, v. 32, n. 6, supl. 1, p. 1594-1603, Dec. 2003. MENDES, A. M. P. et al. Zoneamento bioclimático para a raça ovina Dorper no Estado de Pernambuco. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, v. 49, n. 12, p. 986-993, 2014. MOULLA, F. et al. Characterization of the onset of puberty in Tazegzawt lambs, an endangered Algerian sheep: Body weight, thoracic perimeter, testicular growth, and seminal parameters. Veterinary world, v. 11, n. 7, p. 889, 2018. NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (NRC). Nutrient Requirements of Small Ruminants: Sheep, Goats, Cervids, and New World Camelids. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2007. NOTTER, D. R.; LUCAS, J. R.; MCCLAUGHERTY, F. S. Accuracy of estimation of testis weight from in situ testis measures in ram lambs. Theriogenology, v. 15, n. 2, p. 227-234, 1981. SEJIAN, V. et al. Effect of body condition score on the allometric measurements and reproductive performance of Garole X Malpura ewes under hot semi-arid environment. Journal of Dairy, Veterinary & Animal Research, v. 2, n. 6, p. 1-4, 2015. PACHECO, A.; MADELLA-OLIVEIRA, A. F.; QUIRINO, C. R. Biometria e formas dos testículos em cordeiros da raça Santa Inês explorados em regime de manejo intensivo. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Agrárias, v. 5, n. 1, p. 123-128, 2010. REGO NETO, A. A. et al. Population genetic structure of Santa Inês sheep in Brazil. Tropical animal health and production, v. 50, n. 3, p. 503-508, 2018. RHIND, S. M. Effects of maternal nutrition on fetal and neonatal reproductive development and function. Animal Reproduction Science, v. 82, p. 169-181, 2004. RIBEIRO, E. L. A.; GONZÁLEZ-GARCÍA, E. Indigenous sheep breeds in Brazil: potential role for contributing to the sustainability of production systems. Tropical animal health and production, v. 48, n. 7, p. 1305-1313, 2016. RIBEIRO, M. S. et al. Repeatability and effect of age on reproductive characteristics in Santa Ines rams. Archivos de zootecnia, v. 67, n. 257, p. 143-147, 2018. RUSSEL, A. J. F.; DONEY, J. M.; GUNN, R. G. Subjective assessment of body fat in live sheep. The Journal of Agricultural Science, v. 72, n. 3, p. 451-454, 1969. SILVA, N. V. et al. Medidas in vivo e da carcaça e constituintes não carcaça de ovinos alimentados com diferentes níveis do subproduto agroindustrial da goiaba. Revista Brasileira de Saúde e Produção Animal, v. 17, n. 1, p. 101-115, 2016. SILVA, P. et al. Influence of placentally mediated fetal growth restriction on the onset of puberty in male and female lambs. Reproduction, v. 122, n. 3, p. 375-383, 2001. SIQUEIRA FILHO, E. R. Influência dos níveis protéicos fornecidos na dieta sobre o sistema reprodutivo de carneiros. 2007. 75 f. Dissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Estadual Paulista, Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia de Botucatu, 2007. SOUZA, J. S da et al. Biometric measurements of Santa Inês meat sheep reared on Brachiaria brizantha pastures in Northeast Brazil. Plos one, v. 14, n. 7, p. e0219343, 2019. (shrink)

Formulação de Ração para Ovinos -/- Belo Jardim 2021 Formulação de Ração para Ovinos Copyright © 2021 -/- Todos os direitos reservados -/- Impresso no Brasil / Printed in Brazil -/- Departamento de Nutrição Animal do IPA – Instituto Agronômico de Pernambuco Av. Gen. San Martin, 1371 - Bongi, Recife - PE -/- Presidente do Comitê Editorial Múcio de Barros Wanderley Membros do Comitê Editorial Antônio Raimundo de Sousa Editor-chefe Josimar Gurgel Fernandes Editores de Seção Antonio Felix da Costa Supervisão (...) editorial Almira Almeida de Souza Galdino -/- Dados de Catalogação E81 Formulação de Ração para Ovinos [recurso eletrônico] / – Belo Jardim: IPA, 2021. Il. Color. PDF (estudos técnico e graduação) -/- ISSN 2446-8053 (online) -/- 1. Formulação. 2. Ração. 3. Dietas. 4. Alimentos. 5. Ovinos. I. . II. Título. CDD 221-1 -/- APRESENTAÇÃO -/- O material Formulação de Ração para Ovinos é um material de apoio para os estudantes técnicos da área pecuária ou agropecuária e para os acadêmicos da área da ciência animal que necessitam de uma base teórico-científica para a formulação de dietas para ovinos das mais diferentes categorias, idades, estados fisiológicos etc. A abordagem desse material é a apresentação das exigências nutricionais dos ovinos mediante as bases científicas como o NRC (2007); e, através de equações de predileções, apresentar as exigências nutricionais sob as condições brasileiras. Posteriormente, apresentar exemplos práticos de formulação de dietas mediante as técnicas matemáticas empregadas para a mesma. Será abordada situações reais onde um profissional pode se deparar no cotidiano de propriedades ovinocultoras. O texto estruturado de forma sistêmica, dividido em três capítulos com as exigências nutricionais, composição dos principais alimentos e a formulação prática de dietas, possibilita que os conceitos e as etapas de elaboração de dietas que supram as necessidades dos animais sejam abordados de forma clara e objetiva, com a finalidade de servir de ferramenta para que os produtores rurais, técnicos, zootecnistas, nutricionistas etc. possam conseguir elaborar dietas para fornecer uma ração que supra os requerimentos dos ovinos e que possam, também, atuar como agentes multiplicadores dessas técnicas de elaboração e planejamento alimentar nas suas regiões de origem/atuação. -/- SUMÁRIO -/- EXIGÊNCIAS NUTRICIONAIS DOS OVINOS 1 Equações de predição do consumo de matéria seca (CMS) 1 Equações de predição das formas de energia para ganho de peso 2 Equações de predição das formas de proteína para ovinos 3 Equações de predição de energia para ovinos leiteiros 5 Equações de predição de proteína metabolizável para ovinos leiteiros 6 Tabelas de requerimentos nutricionais dos ovinos 7 ALIMENTOS PARA OVINOS 19 FORMULAÇÃO DE RAÇÃO PARA OVINOS 29 RAÇÕES PRONTAS PARA OVINOS 65 CONCLUSÕES 71 REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS 72 -/- -/- EXIGÊNCIAS NUTRICIONAIS DOS OVINOS -/- Para a formulação de dietas, tanto para a espécie ovina quanto para outras espécies de interesse zootécnico, deve seguir um padrão, este que é estabelecido com o objetivo de facilitar o processo de elaboração de uma dieta. Um dos passos da elaboração é a determinação das exigências nutritivas do animal para que sirva de base para a ração final obter as mesmas quantidades da exigência, por exemplo, um animal que exige 0,25 kg de proteína, então balanceia-se uma dieta que contenha a mesma quantidade exigida. As exigências nutricionais dos animais mudam em decorrência de diversos fatores, sendo os mais relevantes a raça, peso, idade, estado produtivo do animal, ambiente, disponibilidade de forragem etc. Das exigências nutricionais dos animais, as de maior destaque são os requisitos proteicos, energéticos, vitamínicos e minerais. Existem diferentes fontes teóricas e científicas que dispõem de tabelas de requerimentos nutricionais da espécie ovina de acordo com diferentes fatores, sendo eles os de peso vivo; ganho ou perda de peso; estado produtivo ou improdutivo de carne, leite ou lã; animal em início, meio ou fim da gestação com um ou dois fetos; fêmeas paridas em lactação com uma ou duas crias ao pé etc. Apresentarei aqui algumas equações para predizer as exigências líquidas nutricionais dos ovinos e as principais tabelas de requerimentos dos ovinos que servirão de base teórica para a formulação prática de rações para animais em diferentes situações. Equações de predição do consumo de matéria seca (CMS) Na tabela 1, são apresentadas as estimativas para o consumo diário de matéria seca para cordeiros em função da variação do peso vivo (PV) e do ganho de peso diário (GPD), considerando-se a seguinte equação: CMS (kg/animal/dia) = 0,311 + [(0,0197 x PV) + (0,682 x GPD)] -/- Utilizando essa equação para diferentes pesos e médias de ganho de peso diário montamos a tabela de CMS dos cordeiros: Tabela 1: Estimativas do consumo diário de matéria seca em função do peso vivo e do ganho médio diário de peso de cordeiros Fonte: CABRAL, et al., 2008. Equações de predição das formas de energia para ganho de peso Para a estimativa das exigências de energia líquida para ganho de peso dos animais, pode-se utilizar a seguinte fórmula: Y = (2,0411 + (0,0472 x PV)) x GPD -/- Onde: Y = energia líquida (Mcal) necessária para ganho de 1kg de peso vivo PV= peso vivo dos animais GPD = ganho médio diário em kg Para a transformação das exigências em energia líquida para ganho de peso (ELg), foi considerada a eficiência de uso da energia para ganho de peso de 0,47. De posse dos valores de energia metabolizável de mantença (EMm) e energia metabolizável para ganho (EMg), foram obtidos a exigência em energia digestível (ED) e nutrientes digestíveis totais (NDT), dividindo-se o total de EM por 0,82 e a ED por 4,409 (tabela 2): Tabela 2: Estimativas das exigencias de diferentes formas de energia em função do peso vivo e do ganho médio diário de peso de cordeiros Fonte: CABRAL, et al., 2008. Equações de predição das formas de proteína para ovinos Para estimar as necessidades líquidas em proteína em função do ganho de peso, pode-se utilizar a seguinte equação: Y = 189,21 – (0,7652 x PV) x GPD Onde: Y = quantidade (g) de proteína líquida necessária para o ganho de 1 kg de peso vivo PV = peso vivo do animal, que dividido pela eficiência de 0,59 resultou na estimativa da proteína metabolizável para ganho GPD = ganho médio diário em kg Para estimar a proteína para cada kg de peso vivo de ganho é usada a fórmula: Y = 189,21 – (0,7652 x PV) -/- Por sua vez, essa equação foi convertida em proteína metabolizável (PMg) para ganho considerando-se a eficiência de 0,59. Uma vez obtida a quantidade total de proteína metabolizável (PMm + PMg), a mesma foi convertida a proteína bruta (g/animal/dia), a partir das seguintes equações: PMic (g) = 120 x NDT (kg) x 0,64 PDR (g) = 1,11 x PMic PNDR (g) = (PM – PDR)/0,8 PB (g) = PDR + PNDR -/- Onde: PMic = quantidade de proteína bruta microbiana que flui para o duodeno por dia PDR = exigência em proteína degradada no rúmen PNDR = exigência em proteína não degradada no rúmen PB = exigência em proteína bruta Através desse sistema de equações determinamos as estimativas das exigências proteicas dos cordeiros em função do peso vivo e do ganho de peso diário (tabela 3). Lembrando-se que essas equações de predição são para ovinos produtores de carne, isto é, para ovinos de corte. As estimativas e algumas equações de predição para ovinos produtores de leite serão apresentadas posteriormente. Tabela 3: Estimativas das exigencias de diferentes formas de proteína em função do peso vivo e do ganho médio diário de peso de cordeiros Fonte: CABRAL, et al., 2008. Equações de predição de energia para ovinos leiteiros De forma geral, os ovinos necessitam de energia para diversas funções, dentre elas para mantença, para movimentação ou trabalho (mudança de posição, por exemplo), para crescimento, gestação e lactação. As equações de predileção para estimar essas exigências são apresentadas abaixo e foram compiladas do AFRC (1993): Mantença: Metabolismo em Jejum F (MJ/dia) = C1 {0,25(PV/1,08)0,67} para animais de até 1 ano F (MJ/dia) = C1 {0,23(PV/1,08)0,67} para animais acima de 1 ano C1 = 1,15 para machos inteiros; 1,00 para fêmeas e machos castrados Estimativas de custo adicional de energia de atividade: Atividade Custo energético Movimento horizontal 0,7 cal/kg/movim. Movimento vertical 6,7 cal/kg/movim. Em estação 2,4 kcal/kg/dia Uma muda de posição 0,06 kcal/kg -/- Crescimento: Valor de energia do ganho VE (MJ/kg) = 2,5 + 0,35PV (Machos não Merino) VE (MJ/dia) = 4,4+ 0,32PV (Castrados) VE (MJ/dia) = 2,1+ 0,45PV (Fêmeas) VE (MJ/kg) = 5,7 Mcal/kg de ganho (Fêmeas em lactação) Gestação (últimos 3 meses): Retenção diária de energia (EC) Ec = 0,25 PVo (Et x 0,07372e-0,00643), onde: t – número de dias para a composição PVo – total de peso dos cordeiros ao nascimento (kg) Lactação: Valor de energia do leite VEg (MJ/dia) = 0,0328G x 0,0025P + 2,2033, onde G - conteúdo de gordura do leite (g/kg) P – conteúdo de proteína do leite (g/kg) Equações de predição de proteína metabolizável para ovinos leiteiros Mantença: PMm (g/dia) = 2,1875g/kgPV0,75 + 20,4 (Ovelhas) PMm (g/dia) = 2,1875g/kgPV0,75 (Cordeiros (as) em crescimento) Ganho de peso: Valor de proteína do ganho NPf (g/dia) = ∆PV (160,4 – 1,22PV + 0,0105PV2) para machos e castrados NPf (g/dia) = ∆PV (156,01 – 1,94PV + 0,0173PV2) para fêmeas Gestação: Valor de retenção de proteína líquida no feto e envoltórios fetais (PLc) PLc (g/dia) = TPt x 0,06744e-0,00601t, onde t = número de dias para a concepção e: Log10(TPt) = 4,928 – 4,873e-0,00601t Lactação: Valor de proteína líquida do leite (Pll) Pll = 71,9 g/kg de leite Tabelas de requerimentos nutricionais dos ovinos Resumidamente, a composição do concentrado dos ovinos, de acordo com a categoria, e as quantidades a serem fornecidas/animal/dia é a seguinte: Tabela 4: Composição do concentrado e quantidades fornecidas Fonte: CODEVASF, 2011. Agora, vamos dividir os requerimentos dos ovinos de acordo com a categoria, conforme os dados obtidos no NRC (2007). Tabela 5: Cordeiros desmamados precocemente, potencial de crescimento moderado3 PV (kg) GPD (g) CMS (kg/animal¹) CMS (% PV) PB (g) NDT² (g) Ca (g) P (g) 10 200 0,5 5 180 410 3,5 1,8 20 250 1 5 170 815 5,5 2,3 30 300 1,3 4,3 190 1000 6,8 3,2 40 350 1,5 3,8 200 1180 7,8 3,7 50 300 1,5 3 190 1180 6,8 3,7 -/- 1 – para converter matéria seca em matéria natural, divida o valor em MS pela porcentagem de MS do ingrediente. Por exemplo, em uma ração encontrou-se 100 g MS de milho, sabendo-se que a % de MS do milho é 90%, então: 100/0,9 = 112 g de milho com base na matéria natural. 2 – 453,6 g de NDT equivale a 0,91 Mcal de energia digestível (ED). Tabela 6: Cordeiros desmamados precocemente, potencial de crescimento rápido3 PV (kg) GPD (g) CMS (kg/animal) CMS (% PV) PB (g) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 10 250 0,6 6 160 500 5 2,3 20 300 1,2 6 210 910 6,5 2,8 30 350 1,4 4,7 220 1100 7,5 3,2 40 400 1,5 3,8 230 1150 8,5 4,1 50 430 1,7 3,4 240 1270 9,5 6,8 60 350 1,7 2,8 240 1270 8,2 4,5 -/- Tabela 7: Terminação de cordeiros (idade entre 4 e 7 meses)3 PV (kg) GPD (g) CMS (kg/animal) CMS (% PV) PB (g) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 30 300 1,3 4,3 190 950 6,5 3,5 40 270 1,6 4 185 1230 6,5 3,5 50 200 1,6 3,2 160 1230 5,5 3,5 -/- 3 – ganhos de peso máximos esperados. -/- Tabela 8: Borregas de reposição (para reprodução)4 PV (kg) GPD (g) CMS (kg/animal) CMS (% PV) PB (g) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 30 230 1,2 4 185 770 6,5 3 40 180 1,4 3,5 175 910 5,9 3 50 120 1,5 3 140 860 5 2,5 60 100 1,5 2,5 140 860 4,5 2,5 70 100 1,5 2,1 150 860 4,5 3 -/- Tabela 9: Borregos de reposição (para reprodução)4 PV (kg) GPD (g) CMS (kg/animal) CMS (% PV) PB (g) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 40 330 1,8 4,5 250 1130 7,7 3,6 60 320 2,4 4 270 1550 8,2 4,1 80 290 2,8 3,5 270 1770 8,6 4,5 100 250 3 3 270 1770 8,2 4,5 -/- 4 – esses cordeiros são destinados para a reprodução, portanto, o ganho máximo de peso e o acabamento são de importância secundária. Tabela 10: Mantença de ovinos PV (kg) GPD (g) CMS (kg/animal) CMS (% PV) PB (g) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 50 10 1 2 100 550 2 2 60 10 1,1 1,8 110 590 2,5 2,5 70 10 1,2 1,7 120 680 2,5 2,5 80 10 1,3 1,6 130 730 3 3 90 10 1,4 1,5 140 770 3 3 -/- Tabela 11: Flushing para ovinos (2 semanas pré-reprodução e primeiras 3 semanas de reprodução) PV (kg) GPD (g) CMS (kg/animal) CMS (% PV) PB (g) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 50 100 1,6 3,2 150 950 5,5 3 60 100 1,7 2,8 155 1000 5,5 3 70 100 1,8 2,6 165 1050 5,5 3,5 80 100 1,9 2,4 175 1140 6 3,5 90 100 2 2,2 180 1180 6 4 -/- Tabela 12: Primeiras 15 semanas de gestação (não-lactantes) PV (kg) GPD (g) CMS (kg/animal) CMS (% PV) PB (g) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 50 30 1,2 2,4 115 680 3 2,5 60 30 1,3 2,2 125 730 3,5 2,5 70 30 1,4 2 135 770 4 3 80 30 1,5 1,9 140 820 4 3,5 90 30 1,6 1,8 150 870 4,2 4 -/- Tabela 13: Últimas 4 semanas de gestação (taxa de parição entre 130 e 150%) PV (kg) GPD (g) CMS (kg/animal) CMS (% PV) PB (g) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 50 180 1,6 3,2 175 950 6 4,5 60 180 1,7 2,8 185 1000 6 5 70 180 1,8 2,6 190 1050 6,5 5,5 80 180 1,9 2,4 200 1100 6,5 6,5 90 180 2 2,2 215 1150 6,5 6,5 -/- Tabela 14: Últimas 4 semanas de gestação (taxa de parição entre 180 e 225%) PV (kg) GPD (g) CMS (kg/animal) CMS (% PV) PB (g) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 50 220 1,7 3,4 195 1100 6,5 3,5 60 220 1,8 3 205 1180 6,8 4 70 220 1,9 2,7 215 1270 7,7 4,5 80 220 2 2,5 225 1320 8,2 6 90 220 2,1 2,3 235 1360 9,1 6,5 -/- Tabela 15: Primeiras 6 a 8 semanas de lactação (com uma cria) PV (kg) GPD (g) CMS (kg/animal) CMS (% PV) PB (g) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 50 -30 2,1 4,2 300 1360 9 6 60 -30 2,3 3,9 320 1500 9 6,5 70 -30 2,5 3,6 330 1650 9 6,8 80 -30 2,6 3,2 345 1680 9,5 7,3 90 -30 2,7 3 355 1730 9,5 7,7 -/- Valores negativos de GPD indicam queda do consumo e, consequentemente, queda no ganho de peso. Tabela 16: Primeiras 6 a 8 semanas de lactação (com duas crias) PV (kg) GPD (g) CMS (kg/animal) CMS (% PV) PB (g) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 50 -60 2,4 4,8 390 1540 10,5 7,3 60 -60 2,6 4,3 405 1680 10,5 7,7 70 -60 2,8 4 420 1815 11 8,2 80 -60 3 3,8 435 1950 11,5 8,7 90 -60 3,2 3,6 450 2100 11,5 9,1 -/- Tabela 17: Últimas 4 a 6 semanas de lactação (com uma cria) PV (kg) GPD (g) CMS (kg/animal) CMS (% PV) PB (g) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 50 50 1,6 3,2 170 950 6 4,5 60 50 1,7 2,8 180 1000 6 5 70 50 1,8 2,6 190 1050 6,5 5,5 80 50 1,9 2,4 200 1100 6,5 6 90 50 2 2,2 215 1150 6,5 6,5 -/- Tabela 18: Últimas 4 a 6 semanas de lactação (com duas crias) PV (kg) GPD (g) CMS (kg/animal) CMS (% PV) PB (g) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 50 90 2,1 4,2 300 1360 9 6 60 90 2,3 3,8 320 1500 9 6,5 70 90 2,5 3,6 330 1630 9 7 80 90 2,6 3,2 350 1680 9,5 7,5 90 90 2,7 3 360 1730 9,5 8 -/- Ovinos raças leves Tabela 19: Primeiras 15 semanas de gestação (não lactantes) PV (kg) GPD (g) CMS (kg/animal) CMS (% PV) PB (g) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 40 160 1,4 3,5 155 820 6,5 3,5 50 140 1,5 3 160 860 6,5 3,5 60 140 1,6 2,7 160 910 6,5 3,5 70 130 1,7 2,4 165 1000 6,5 3,5 -/- Tabela 20: Últimas 4 semanas de gestação (taxa de parto esperada de 100 a 120%) PV (kg) GPD (g) CMS (kg/animal) CMS (% PV) PB (g) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 40 180 1,5 3,8 185 950 6,5 3,5 50 160 1,6 3,2 190 1000 6,5 3,5 60 160 1,7 2,8 190 1100 6,5 3,5 70 150 1,8 2,6 195 1150 7 4 -/- Tabela 21: Últimas 4 semanas de gestação (taxa de parto esperada de 130 a 175%) PV (kg) GPD (g) CMS (kg/animal) CMS (% PV) PB (g) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 40 230 1,5 3,8 200 1000 7,5 3,5 50 230 1,6 3,2 210 1050 8 3,5 60 230 1,7 2,8 215 1150 8,5 4 70 230 1,8 2,6 215 1150 8,5 4,5 -/- Tabela 22: Primeiras 6 a 8 semanas de lactação com uma cria (desmame em 8 semanas) PV (kg) GPD (g) CMS (kg/animal) CMS (% PV) PB (g) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 40 -50 1,7 4,2 260 1150 6 4 50 -50 2,1 4,2 280 1410 6,5 4,5 60 -50 2,3 3,8 295 1550 7 5 70 -50 2,5 3,6 310 1640 7,5 5,5 -/- Tabela 23: Primeiras 6 a 8 semanas de lactação com duas crias (desmame em 8 semanas) PV (kg) GPD (g) CMS (kg/animal) CMS (% PV) PB (g) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 40 -90 2,1 5,2 310 1450 8,5 5,5 50 -90 2,3 4,6 325 1590 9 6 60 -90 2,5 4,2 340 1730 9,5 6,5 70 -90 2,7 3,9 350 1860 9,5 7 -/- Concentrações de nutrientes necessárias em rações de ovinos (% da MS) Tabela 24: Concentrações de nutrientes para rações de ovinos com base na % da MS Mantença CMS 1,2 kg – PB 9,5% - NDT 55% - EM (Mcal/kg) 2,0 - Ca 0,4 g/kg – P 0,2 g/kg Flushing CMS 1,8 kg – PB 9% - NDT 60% - EM (Mcal/kg) 2,1 - Ca 0,5 g/kg – P 0,2 g/kg Gestantes primeiras 15 semanas CMS 1,4 kg – PB 9,5% - NDT 55% - EM (Mcal/kg) 2,0 - Ca 0,5 g/kg – P 0,2 g/kg Gestantes últimas semanas (queda de 40% no CMS) CMS 1,8 kg – PB 11% - NDT 60% - EM (Mcal/kg) 2,1 - Ca 0,6 g/kg – P 0,25 g/kg Gestantes últimas semanas (queda de 60% no CMS) CMS 2,0 kg – PB 11,5% - NDT 65% - EM (Mcal/kg) 2,3 - Ca 0,65 g/kg – P 0,3 g/kg Início da gestação (1 feto) CMS 1,3 kg – PB 8% - NDT 55% - EM (Mcal/kg) 1,9 - Ca 0,45 g/kg – P 0,32 g/kg Final da gestação (1 feto) CMS 1,5 kg – PB 7% - NDT 65% - EM (Mcal/kg) 2,0 - Ca 0,55 g/kg – P 0,4 g/kg Início da gestação (dois fetos) CMS 1,5 kg – PB 8,5% - NDT 55% - EM (Mcal/kg) 1,9 - Ca 0,4 g/kg – P 0,28 g/kg Final da gestação (dois fetos) CMS 1,5 kg – PB 11% - NDT 75% - EM (Mcal/kg) 2,6 - Ca 0,55 g/kg – P 0,35 g/kg Lactação (uma cria) CMS 2,5 kg – PB 13,5% - NDT 65% - EM (Mcal/kg) 2,3 - Ca 0,65 g/kg – P 0,3 g/kg Lactação (duas crias) CMS 2,8 kg – PB 15% - NDT 65% - EM (Mcal/kg) 2,5 - Ca 0,75 g/kg – P 0,35 g/kg Creep-feeding para cordeiros CMS 0,6 kg – PB 26,5% - NDT 80% - EM (Mcal/kg) 2,9 - Ca 0,95 g/kg – P 0,4 g/kg Cordeiros crescimento (GPD 270 g/dia) CMS 1,18 kg – PB 16,5% - NDT 78% - EM (Mcal/kg) 2,8 - Ca 0,6 g/kg – P 0,25 g/kg Cordeiros terminação (GPD 360 g/dia) CMS 1,5 kg – PB 14,5% - NDT 78% - EM (Mcal/kg) 2,7 - Ca 0,7 g/kg – P 0,3 g/kg Cordeiros terminação (GPD 270 g/dia) CMS 1,6 kg – PB 12% - NDT 75% - EM (Mcal/kg) 2,7 - Ca 0,55 g/kg – P 0,22 g/kg Borregas reposição CMS 1,4 kg – PB 10% - NDT 65% - EM (Mcal/kg) 2,4 - Ca 0,45 g/kg – P 0,18 g/kg Borregos reposição CMS 2,4 kg – PB 11% - NDT 65% - EM (Mcal/kg) 2,3 - Ca 0,45 g/kg – P 0,18 g/kg Reprodutores serviço CMS 3,0 kg – PB 10% - NDT 65% - EM (Mcal/kg) 2,3 - Ca 0,4 g/kg – P 0,15 g/kg Confinamento de ovinos PB 14% - NDT 65% - Ca 0,8 % – P 0,4% Adaptação de BELLUZO et al., 2001; BORGES & GONÇALVES, 2011 e NRC, 2007. As exigências minerais dos ovinos, segundo autores, são apresentadas na tabela 25. Tabela 25: Exigências minerais de ovinos MACROMINERAIS CHURCH (2002) (%) ZANETTI (2019) (%) Ca 0,2 – 0,82 0,3 – 0,5 P 0,16 – 0,38 0,17 – 0,48 Mg 0,12 – 0,18 0,09 – 0,11 K 0,5 – 0,8 0,46 S 0,14 – 0,26 0,15 – 0,25 Na 0,09 – 0,18 0,1 Cl 0,09 – 0,18 0,1 MICROMINERAIS CHURCH (2002) mg/kg ZANETTI (2019) mg/kg Co 0,1 – 0,2 0,1 Cu 7 – 11 4 – 7 Fe 30 – 50 7 – 90 I 0,1 – 0,8 0,5 Mn 20 – 40 8 – 24 Mo 0,5 5 Se 0,1 – 0,2 0,04 – 0,52 Zn 20 – 33 25 – 29 -/- Energia metabolizável para ovinos A energia metabolizável é a parte da energia bruta que não aparece em fezes, urinas e nos gases produtos da fermentação (principalmente metano). É determinada pela subtração das perdas de energia na urina e gases combustíveis da energia digestível (ED) consumida; para isso, deve-se coletar fezes, urinas e perdas gasosas. É um pouco mais precisa que a ED em termos de estimativa da energia disponível, porém mais caro para determiná-la. Compara-se com a energia proveniente do NDT menos a energia dos gases da fermentação. Determinamos através da fórmula: EM = EB (energia bruta) – (energia perdida em fezes + energia perdida em gases da fermentação + energia perdida na urina) -/- Em muitos cálculos da formulação de dietas para animais de produção é utilizada a energia metabolizável no lugar do NDT. Logo, apresentamos as exigências de energia metabolizável dos ovinos em função do peso e da categoria fisiológica do animal. Tabela 26: Exigências de energia metabolizável para ovinos PV (kg) EM (Mcal/dia) Mantença EM (Mcal/dia) Flushing EM (Mcal/dia) Início gestação 1 cria EM (Mcal/dia) Início gestação 2 crias 40 1,48 1,63 1,89 2,20 50 1,75 1,92 2,21 2,51 60 2,00 2,21 2,51 2,89 70 2,25 2,48 2,80 3,22 80 2,49 2,74 3,08 3,52 PV (kg) EM (Mcal/dia) Final gestação 1 cria EM (Mcal/dia) Final gestação 2 crias EM (Mcal/dia) Lactação 1 cria EM (Mcal/dia) Lactação 2 crias 40 2,38 3,05 2,61 3,35 50 2,76 3,50 3,00 3,85 60 3,11 3,94 3,39 4,31 70 3,45 4,37 3,75 4,73 80 3,78 4,75 4,08 5,15 -/- As exigências nutricionais dos ovinos servem de alicerce para a elaboração de uma dieta, uma vez que, diante os cálculos, é necessário estimar uma quantidade x de um dado alimento para suprir uma exigência final seja proteica, energética ou qualquer outra. Essas tabelas de exigências dos ovinos servem de base após a caracterização do lote para que deve ser elaborada uma mistura. Por exemplo, um lote de cordeiros com 30 kg de peso vivo, quais são as exigências de cada animal? Basta consultar a tabela 7 deste manual para depois ser levantado os alimentos e a composição destes e começar a elaborar a dieta. Agora que conhecemos os animais e suas exigências, vamos discorrer sobre o grupo e os principais ingredientes com potencial nutricional para alimentar os ovinos. -/- Relação volumoso:concentrado (v:c) para ovinos Além do balanceamento dos nutrientes necessários, a relação v:c da dieta depende, basicamente, da qualidade do volumoso e da ração concentrada. Se o volumoso possuir boa qualidade, consequentemente seu valor nutricional será melhor e, para ovinos em mantença por exemplo, pode ser empregado em 100% da ração; por sua vez, se o volumoso possuir péssima qualidade nutricional será necessária a adição de concentrado na dieta diária do animal, não esquecendo de que essa ração concentrada deverá atender os requisitos do animal, logo a ração deverá ser de boa qualidade. Além da qualidade do volumoso e/ou concentrado, a relação v:c depende também do objetivo final de criação, isto é, se é necessário engordar os animais em menos tempo para abate, ou em pastagem etc., portanto, também depende da necessidade de ganho de peso diário para os animais, uma vez que a finalidade é um GPD maior é utilizada uma relação concentrada maior que a volumosa. O NRC, 2007 sugere as proporções de v:c para ovinos em diferentes situações. Exemplos de proporções de volumoso e concentrado na dieta de ovinos PV Kg VOLUMOSO % CONCENTRADO % Mantença 70 100 0 Flushing 70 85 15 Fêmeas secas – primeiras 15 semanas de gestação 70 100 0 Últimas 4 semanas de gestação (TP¹ 130-150%) 70 85 15 Últimas 4-6 semanas de lactação 1 cria 70 85 15 Últimas 4 semanas de gestação (TP 180-225%) 70 65 35 Primeiras 6-8 semanas de lactação com 1 cria 70 65 35 Últimas 4-6 semanas de lactação com 2 crias 70 65 35 Primeiras 6-8 semanas de lactação com 2 crias 70 65 35 Borregas secas – primeiras 15 semanas de gestação 55 85 15 Borregas – últimas 4 semanas de gestação (TP 100-120%) 55 70 30 Borregas – últimas 4 semanas de gestação (TP 130-175%) 55 60 40 Borregas – primeiras 6-8 semanas de lactação com 1 cria (desmame aos 8 meses) 55 60 40 Borregas – primeiras 6-8 semanas de lactação com 2 crias (desmame aos 8 meses) 55 50 50 Borregas de reposição 30 65 35 40 65 35 50-70 85 15 Borregos de reposição 40 70 30 60 70 30 80-100 70 30 Terminação de cordeiros 4-7 meses 30 40 60 40 25 75 50 20 80 Cordeiros recém-desmamados 10 10 90 20 15 85 30 15 85 40-60 15 85 Fonte: NRC, 2007. -/- ALIMENTOS PARA OVINOS -/- De forma geral, sabemos que os alimentos dividem-se em dois grupos os alimentos volumosos e os concentrados. Os volumosos são aqueles que possuem carga nutritiva menor e que o animal deve consumir em maior quantidade para suprir suas exigências nutricionais, o teor de proteína desses alimentos é variável, mas, na maior parte, não ultrapassa os 20%; por sua vez, a quantidade de fibra é grande já que esse grupo engloba as forragens, pastagens, fenos, palhas, silagens, raízes, tubérculos etc. Os concentrados são aqueles com alta carga nutricional e que o animal, mesmo consumindo poucas quantidades (em torno de 1 kg), supre todas suas exigências nutricionais; estes são divididos em alimentos que fornecem mais energia do que proteína (energéticos) como o milho, e nos que fornecem mais proteína que energia (proteicos) como o farelo de soja. Existem uma série de alimentos que podem ser utilizados na alimentação dos ovinos como as gramíneas forrageiras como o capim-andropogon, capim-braquiária, capim-buffel, capim tifton, estrela-africana, capim-massai, capim-mombaça, capim-colonião e capim-elefante; as leguminosas que são, muitas vezes, fontes alternativas de alimentos como o amendoim forrageiro, guandu, feijão andu, leucena, estilosantes, algaroba, gliricídia, sabiá etc.; os alimentos concentrados energéticos como a aveia, trigo, cevada, centeio, milho, sorgo, arroz e os subprodutos desses ingredientes; os alimentos concentrados proteicos como farelo de linhaça, farelo de girassol, farelo de amendoim, farelo de soja etc. Existem ainda, os alimentos provenientes da caatinga com alto potencial para a alimentação dos ovinos; a composição proteica desses alimentos e a parte comestível que pode ser fornecida aos ovinos é apresentada na tabela 27. -/- Tabela 27: Forragens nativas do nordeste brasileiro usadas como alimento Fonte: CODEVASF, 2011. A composição bromatológica dos ingredientes utilizados na alimentação dos ovinos, que é indispensável para a elaboração de dietas que supram os requisitos é apresentada na tabela 28. É importante frisar que existem outros ingredientes com alto potencial nutricional para os ovinos. Tabela 28: Composição bromatológica dos alimentos utilizados na alimentação de ovinos Alimento MS% PB% EE% EM (Mcal/kg) NDT% Ca% P% Concentrados energéticos Arroz farelo desengordurado 88,2 16,8 1,66 2,1 24,9 0,09 1,8 Arroz farelo desfinitizado 90,8 18 1,65 - - 0,31 2,04 Arroz farelo integral 88,9 13,4 16,4 3,3 87,5 0,11 1,73 Arroz farelo parboilizado 91,2 16,2 24,25 - - - 0,09 Arroz grão c/casca 89,1 8,2 3,9 2,0 56,1 0,09 0,08 Arroz grão s/casca 86,2 8,5 1,2 - - 0,04 0,16 Continuação MS% PB% EE% EM (Mcal/kg) NDT% Ca% P% Aveia grão 90,4 14,6 3,8 3,2 83,3 0,13 0,35 Batata 29,1 3,1 0,3 3,1 84,6 0,33 0,08 Batata doce - 6 0,6 - - 0,05 0,11 Beterraba 14 2 0,4 - - 0,18 0,12 Cacau farelo 88,8 15,9 4,5 2,4 64,5 0,74 0,5 Centeio grão 88,4 18,1 1,9 - - 0,68 0,42 Cevada grão 89,9 12,4 1,5 2,8 76,8 0,05 0,37 Dendê torta 91 15,4 9,3 3,1 82,3 0,2 0,75 Faveira vagem 77,3 11,2 1,25 - 72,5 - - Mandioca raspa 87,7 2,8 0,5 3,0 82,2 0,21 0,07 Milheto grão 88,1 12,1 3,2 - - - - Milho grão/fubá 88 9 4 3,3 87,7 0,03 0,26 MDPS 87,9 7,1 3,15 2,8 75,9 0,04 0,22 Milho espiga silagem 55,2 8,1 3,7 3,2 85,9 0,05 0,27 Milho gérmen farelo 89,9 11 22,9 3,9 103,8 0,03 0,42 Milho grão reidratado silagem 65,8 9,3 4,7 3,75 99,6 - - Milho silagem grão úmido 66,7 9,2 4,6 3,3 88,2 0,03 0,25 Polpa cítrica 88,4 6,9 3,1 2,9 78,3 1,8 0,13 Soja casca 90,1 12,6 2,2 2,7 72,5 0,52 0,16 Sorgo grão 88 9,3 2,9 3,1 84,4 0,07 0,29 Sorgo grão reidratado silagem 65,3 9,15 3,4 3,0 79,9 - - Trigo farelo 87,6 16,7 3,6 2,95 77,3 0,17 1,01 Trigo grão 89,1 14,2 1,45 - - - - Concentrados proteicos Algodão caroço 90,6 23,1 19,2 3,45 88,2 0,27 0,75 Algodão farelo 28 89,8 28 2,0 2,8 68,1 0,26 0,77 Algodão farelo 38 89,7 38 1,5 2,7 65,6 0,24 0,97 Algodão farelo 42 90,5 42 1,6 3,0 69,8 0,22 0,96 Algodão torta 90,4 29,6 9,5 3,0 75,6 0,28 0,58 Amendoim farelo 89,4 56 1,3 3,9 89,5 0,18 0,62 Continuação MS% PB% EE% EM (Mcal/kg) NDT% Ca% P% Amiréia 90,6 200 5,0 - 22 0,12 0,08 Babaçu farelo 90 20,6 1,6 2,75 71,9 0,13 0,36 Babaçu torta 90,8 19,3 8,0 3,0 78 0,15 0,69 Crambe farelo 89,1 35,9 1,2 3,1 73,9 0,29 0,47 Canola farelo 89,4 40,1 2,5 3,5 83,4 0,62 0,82 Colza farelo 91,2 40 5,2 - - 0,65 1,34 Colza grão 93,3 23,6 43,7 - - 0,24 0,81 Farinha de ostras 95,7 33,7 - - - 36,2 5,3 Feijão moído 89,6 24,2 1,5 3,2 80,8 0,54 0,43 Girassol farelo 90,2 31,4 1,9 2,9 71,1 0,3 0,9 Linhaça integral 90 21 34 - - 0,25 0,5 Linhaça torta - 32 3,5 - 75 0,4 0,8 Linhaça farelo 92 34 1,0 - - 0,6 0,6 Mamona farelo 89,6 38 2,7 2,95 70,9 0,7 0,77 Mamona farelo detoxificado 89,2 38,1 1,5 2,9 69,3 1,46 0,65 Mamona torta 89,2 31,8 7,0 3,3 81,6 0,72 0,84 Mamona torta detoxificada 86,3 34 5,5 3,0 73,9 2,14 0,8 Milho glúten 60 90,6 60 2,8 3,8 83,9 0,05 0,44 Milho glúten farelo 21 88,8 21 2,8 3,0 76,7 0,16 0,7 Nabo forrageiro torta 91,9 37,3 18,1 3,7 91,2 0,36 1,71 Milho (DDGS) 91,2 31,8 8,2 - 89 0,05 0,86 Resíduo de cervejaria 22,3 25,6 6,3 3,6 92,2 0,33 0,78 Milho – (DDG) 87,5 23,6 12,7 3,4 86,2 0,05 0,32 Milho (WDG) 31,8 32 6,7 - 93 0,05 0,35 Soja farelo 87 45 2,0 3,4 73 0,3 0,61 Soja farelo extrusado 96,7 41 10,6 3,7 89,7 0,07 0,57 Soja grão 92,8 37 18,8 4,1 87 0,25 0,58 Soja grão tostado 91,7 39,1 21 3,9 94,2 0,25 0,49 Ureia 97,9 280 - - - - - Coprodutos e/ou subprodutos Arroz palha 89 4,4 - - - - - Continuação MS% PB% EE% EM (Mcal/kg) NDT% Ca% P% Abacaxi desidratado 87,1 8,8 1,5 2,1 58,8 0,41 0,18 Acerola subproduto 84,2 11,7 2,4 1,85 51,2 0,41 0,18 Aveia palha 88,8 4,6 2,3 - - - - Batata doce folha - 26,8 - - - - - Batata doce rama 17,4 11,5 2,3 2,4 66,8 1,44 0,32 Cana-de-açúcar bagaço 91 2,0 0,69 1,7 46,6 0,21 0,07 Café casca 84,8 10,1 1,6 1,8 49,7 0,33 0,13 Capim elefante colmo 22 5,8 - 2,0 55,9 - - Caju subproduto suco 88,7 13,9 3,1 - 47,2 0,43 0,1 Maça bagaço 9,9 9,8 - - - - - Mandioca casca 88,6 4,5 1,15 2,7 74,5 0,48 0,06 Maracujá subproduto 85,8 11,9 2,4 1,85 50,8 0,53 0,13 Trigo palha 90 3,9 - - - - - Uva bagaço 35,2 15,9 - - - - - Forragens secas Alfafa feno 85,8 18,7 2,0 2,1 66,4 1,17 0,33 Alfafa feno peletizado 90 25 - - - - - Aveia feno 90 10 2,3 2,0 54 0,4 0,27 Aveia preta feno 87,7 9,9 1,75 - - - - Azevém feno 93 13,5 1,4 - - - - Brachiaria B. feno 88 4,2 1,2 1,9 54 0,33 0,11 Brachiaria D. feno 89 7 1,35 1,9 54,5 0,27 0,14 Cevada feno 90 9 2,1 2,1 57 0,3 0,28 Coast-cross feno 87 10,5 1,75 1,9 53 0,27 0,38 Capim elefante feno 87,3 6 1,8 1,8 52 0,24 0,18 Capim tifton 85 feno 88 9,9 1,45 2,2 57,7 0,33 0,27 Jureminha feno 88 15,9 2,0 1,9 51,7 - - Maniçoba feno 86 12 4,2 2,1 56,2 - - Trevo feno 89 16 2,2 2,1 57 1,73 0,24 Trigo feno 90 9 2,0 2,1 57 0,21 0,22 Triticale feno 90 10 - 2,0 56 0,3 0,26 Continuação MS% PB% EE% EM (Mcal/kg) NDT% Ca% P% Silagens (pré-secado) Alfafa silagem 30 18 3,0 2,0 55 1,4 0,29 Arroz silagem planta 37 8,5 - - - - - Aveia preta silagem 23,4 11 2,9 - - - - Aveia silagem 35 12 3,2 2,2 60 0,34 0,3 Azevém silagem 22,4 10,6 1,9 - - - - Cana-de-açúcar silagem 25,7 3,5 1,7 1,9 54,8 0,3 0,05 Cana silagem 0-0,5% CAO 28,9 2,8 1,1 2,2 62 - - Cana silagem 0,5% ureia 28,6 10 - - - - - Cana silagem 1% ureia 31 15 - - - - - Cana silagem 1,5% ureia 29 18 - - - - - Capim elefante silagem 27,5 5,5 2,2 1,7 50 0,31 0,2 Capim mombaça silagem 24,4 7,4 1,7 1,7 49,4 0,44 0,12 Cevada silagem 30 18 3,0 2,0 55 1,4 0,29 Estilosantes silagem 29,3 11,8 1,8 1,8 49 - - Girassol silagem 24,7 9,6 12,4 2,0 56,1 1,02 0,24 Milho silagem 31,1 7,2 2,9 2,3 63,8 0,28 0,19 Milheto silagem 19 15 3,8 2,3 62,7 - - Milho silagem sem espiga 21,3 6,4 1,4 1,9 53,6 - - Soja silagem 25,8 17,8 9,5 2,3 60 - - Sorgo silagem 32 9 2,7 2,1 59 0,48 0,21 Sorgo forrageiro silagem 28,1 6,3 3,4 2,3 63,9 0,14 0,14 Sorgo silagem com tanino 27,6 7,1 2,1 2,2 61,7 - - Sorgo silagem sem tanino 28 7,4 2,2 2,2 61 - - Triticale silagem 26,3 14 1,4 2,1 58 0,66 0,4 Trigo silagem 33 12 3,2 2,1 59 0,4 0,28 Forragens verdes Amendoim forrageiro 22,8 18,4 1,9 2,1 54,5 2,1 0,22 Cana-de-açúcar 28,9 2,8 1,5 2,3 64,5 0,24 0,08 Capim braquiária brizantha 34 6,9 2,0 1,8 52 0,31 0,11 Capim bb (46-60 dias) 20,8 9,5 4,0 2,0 55,7 0,71 0,47 Continuação MS% PB% EE% EM (Mcal/kg) NDT% Ca% P% Capim bb (61-90 dias) 24,9 6,5 4,0 2,1 58 0,46 0,38 Capim bb (91-120 dias) 27,7 4,8 1,2 1,9 54 0,58 0,17 Capim braquiária marandu 33,2 7,7 2,0 1,8 51,5 0,28 0,09 Capim bm (61-90 dias) 37,8 5,5 1,8 1,8 53 0,08 0,05 Capim braq. marandu outono 31 11,8 1,4 2,0 55 - - Capim bm primavera 27 11,3 2,0 2,1 58,7 - - Capim bm verão 29 12,3 1,8 2,0 54 - - Capim bb MG4 23 9,2 1,9 1,9 52,6 - - Capim bb MG4 (61-90 dias) 29 6,4 1,5 1,9 53 - - Capim bb piatã (61-90 dias) 34 4,7 1,7 1,9 55,8 - - Capim bb xaraés 23 9,3 1,5 2,0 56 0,6 0,09 Capim braquiária decumbens 28,5 6,7 1,8 1,8 51,5 0,4 0,1 Capim bd (61-90 dias) 27,8 7,2 2,1 1,7 49,3 0,3 0,19 Capim bb (91-120 dias) 30 5,7 2,1 1,9 55,2 0,3 0,2 Capim bd (121-150 dias) 43,7 5,1 2,1 2,0 56,7 0,72 0,28 Capim braquiária humidícola 28 7,4 2,5 1,9 54,8 0,38 0,12 Capim buffel (61-90 dias) 34,6 7,8 1,8 1,8 52,3 - - Capim coast cross 32,6 12,2 2,5 - 65,4 0,46 0,16 Capim colonião outono 29,4 14,7 1,3 - - - - Capim colonião primavera 23,4 14,6 1,6 - - - - Capim colonião verão 26,7 16,5 2,6 - - - - Capim elefante 21,7 7 2,3 1,7 50 0,36 0,23 Capim gordura 28 6,9 1,3 2,1 58 0,24 0,07 Capim massai (61-90 dias) 29,5 8 2,1 1,8 51,6 - - Capim mombaça 27 11 1,7 1,9 53 0,74 0,19 Capim mombaça (61-90 dias) 26,8 8,3 1,4 1,8 52 - 0,11 Capim setária (61-90 dias) 21,7 9 1,4 1,9 53,7 - - Capim sudão 19 12,9 2,9 2,0 55 - - Capim tanzânia 23,4 9,5 2,4 1,8 51 0,59 0,14 Capim tanzânia (61-90 dias) 31 5,6 1,7 1,8 53 - - Capim tifton 68 23 13,4 2,9 - - - 0,08 Continuação MS% PB% EE% EM (Mcal/kg) NDT% Ca% P% Capim tifton 85 27 12,9 2,0 1,4 39,5 0,54 0,5 Cunhã 29 16,6 5,1 2,6 69,5 - 0,18 Gliricídia 22 17 5,4 2,2 59 - - Leucena 32 21,2 3,9 2,7 69 0,86 0,18 Maniçoba 24,8 19,4 7,1 2,5 65,3 - 0,18 Milheto 20 12,2 3,1 2,2 60 0,72 0,26 Mororó 47,4 11,3 3,8 2,3 62 - - Palma miúda 11,3 4,1 2,6 2,3 64,2 3,84 0,22 Sabiá 43,6 12 4,3 2,3 62,2 - - Sorgo forrageiro 24 6,9 3,0 1,8 51,6 0,13 0,13 Forragens verdes e cultivadas Alfafa 25 22 2,7 - 65 1,64 0,23 Aveia branca 90 15 - - - - - Aveia preta 21 8 1,6 2,2 61,5 0,31 0,25 Aveia + Azevém (cultivada) 19 19 4,8 - - - - Azevém 15 15 3,6 - 68 0,43 0,28 Azevém pré-florescimento 17,5 15 1,7 2,4 66,6 0,42 0,3 Azevém início floresc. 22,4 12 1,5 2,3 63 0,45 0,27 Cana-de-açúcar caule 26 2,9 3,2 - - - - Cana-de-açúcar caule+folhas 24 7 3,0 2,3 63,5 0,23 0,21 Centeio 25 13 1,5 2,2 60 0,26 0,29 Cornichão 21 18 2,0 2,3 63 0,92 0,27 Festuca 24 8,5 1,8 2,3 64 0,32 0,3 Trevo branco 16 19 2,1 2,4 64 1,1 0,37 Amendoim branco 36,6 16,8 2,4 2,4 67 1,23 0,18 Braquiarão - 9 1,7 2,3 57 0,3 0,17 Capim colonião (20-60 dias) - 11-5 - - 61-47 0,45¹ 0,24² Capim pangola 35 7,5 - - 55 - - Guandu (40->90 dias) - 21-13 - - - - - Continuação MS% PB% EE% EM (Mcal/kg) NDT% Ca% P% Fontes alternativas (Nordeste) Coroa de frade 11 8 3,5 2,5 - 2,06 0,17 Facheiro 10,5 7,5 2,4 2,5 - 5,03 0,12 Mandacaru 14,5 3,5 1,8 2,5 - 3,06 0,07 Palma gigante 12 5 1,9 2,5 - 2,35 0,13 Xique-xique 13 6 1,3 1,7 48,3 3,12 0,07 Cana-de-açúcar caldo 23 0,3 - 2,0 - 0,01 0,02 Cana-de-açúcar levedura 89 35 1,9 2,0 - 0,48 0,73 Coco farelo 91 24 9,0 3,0 - 0,29 0,51 Capim buffel feno 87 4,5 1,2 1,2 - 0,21 0,06 Capim tifton feno 91 8,5 1,6 1,75 53 0,49 0,14 Cunhã feno 90,5 18 2,7 3,0 - 0,43 0,18 Erva-sal feno 89 9 1,6 - - 0,77 0,04 Feijão bravo feno 80 11,5 3,3 3,0 51 - - Flor de seda feno 75 14 6 1,9 - 2,6 0,22 Guandu feno - 14 2,7 - - - 0,11 Leucena feno 91 21 3,2 2,8 55 1,18 0,29 Mata-pasto feno 89 9,5 - - - 1,75 0,12 Sorgo forrageiro feno 90,8 4,2 - 2,0 - 0,4 0,22 Canafístula 40,8 12,9 4,6 2,0 54 - - Capim elefante roxo 20 8,5 3,5 - - 0,42 0,41 Géria 88 16 1,0 - - 1,17 0,21 Feijão dos arrozais 24 17 5,0 2,7 69 2,6 0,04 Glicirídia casca - 13 0,9 - - 2,06 0,18 Glicirídia caule - 5,6 0,4 - - 0,44 0,07 Glicirídia folha - 22,7 2,0 - - 2,44 0,18 Guandu parte aérea 35 19 5,0 - - 0,89 0,12 Jurema preta 35 12 9,0 - - 0,67 0,25 Leucena caule 49,4 7,5 2,1 - - 0,56 0,69 Leucena folha 35,5 24 2,2 - - 2,18 0,2 Mandioca folha 45 22 5,5 2,5 - 0,91 0,23 Continuação MS% PB% EE% EM (Mcal/kg) NDT% Ca% P% Siratro 25 16 2,7 - - 1,02 0,16 Umbuzeiro folha 15 15 8,6 - - 1,29 0,22 Mandioca parte aérea silagem 12,3 18 3,6 2,0 53 1,21 0,14 Caju castanha 97,5 21,9 40,1 5,5 128,9 - - Caju castanha farelo amêndoa 95 23,5 47 3,5 - 0,6 0,25 Caju farelo pseudofruto 89,5 14,8 6,0 - 75 0,06 0,04 Coco amêndoa farelo 96 25 21,7 2,7 - 0,31 0,26 Goiaba subproduto 55 8 4,7 - 35,7 0,15 0,36 Mandioca bagaço 87,6 2 0,6 - 65 0,14 1,8 Maracujá subproduto 92 11 0,7 1,8 52 0,42 0,22 Melão subproduto 92 14 2,1 0,95 37 0,56 0,8 Milho palha 92,3 5,1 0,4 2,5 54 0,15 0,13 Fontes de minerais Calcário 100% MS – 38% Ca e 1% Mg Calcário calcítico 100% MS – 33,6% Ca Calcário dolomítico 92% MS – 20,3% Ca e 9,6% Mg Cloreto de potássio 100% MS – 39,6% K Flor de enxofre 100% MS – 96% S Fosfato bicálcico 100% MS – 23% Ca – 18% P – 1% Mg – 0,08% K e 0,13% Na Fosfato tricálcico 99,6% MS – 40,2% Ca e 16% P Iodato de potássio 100% MS – 59,3% I Óxido de magnésio 98% MS – 0,58% Ca – 53,8% Mg e 0,03% Na Sal comum 99% MS – 39,5% Na – 2,7% Mn e 9,9% Zn – 1,3% Cu Selenito de sódio 100% MS – 45,6% Se Sulfato de cobalto 100% MS – 20% Co Sulfato de cobre 100% MS – 25,4% Cu Sulfato de manganês 100% MS – 32,5% Mn Sulfato de zinco 100% MS – 35% Zn Fontes proteicas de origem animal³ Proibidos na alimentação de ruminantes dada a IN MAPA – 8/2004 Art. 1º Fonte: DA SILVA, 2021. -/- FORMULAÇÃO DE RAÇÃO PARA OVINOS -/- A formulação de dietas para ovinos e caprinos de corte é análoga ao esquema de formulação para a espécie caprina e demais ruminantes. Sempre é necessário categorizar os animais para determinar situações como peso vivo do animal, estado fisiológico, isto é, se está produzindo ou não, idade etc.; posteriormente, faz-se necessário a busca pelas exigências nutricionais dos animais mediante a literatura, seja através das publicações do NRC, AFRC ou CSIRO; encontrada as exigências dos ovinos é necessário a avaliação de quais são os ingredientes disponíveis para a formulação da dieta e sua composição nutricional para ser utilizado de métodos matemáticos ou programações de computador para balancear as quantidades de cada um para que possam suprir a exigência do animal. Aqui, apresentarei situações de formulação práticas, que o profissional poderá se deparar no cotidiano profissional, dos quais os animais serão alimentados com o uso do creep-feeding e flushing; e animais em mantença, confinados para o ganho de peso, sob pastejo, gestantes e, por fim, em lactação com uma ou duas crias ao pé. Para a determinação das exigências dos animais utilizarei os valores aqui descritos que foram compilados do NRC, 2007 e descritos nas tabelas do capítulo 1. Para os alimentos serão usados os valores aqui presentes e compilados de diversos autores e descritos na tabela 28 do capítulo 2. A abordagem matemática utilizada para formular as dietas serão explicadas pelos métodos de formulação do quadrado de Pearson simples, que balanceia apenas um nutriente, ou duplo, que balanceia mais de um nutriente; pelo método algébrico com duas equações e dois ingredientes, ou três equações e três ou mais ingredientes, do qual esse método é capaz de sempre balancear dois ou três nutrientes, sendo os usados a PB e NDT. Os cálculos serão explicados de forma didática visando a facilidade para todos. EXEMPLO 1: formular uma ração para cordeiros com 12 dias de idade que exigem 20% de PB e 75% de NDT utilizando farelo de trigo, MDPS e farelo de soja. Deixar 1% para suplemento mineral e sal. Como 1% deve ser reservado para a inclusão de sal mineral e sal, a ração a ser formulada deve ser de 99%. 1º passo: composição dos alimentos: Ingredientes MS % PB % NDT % Farelo de trigo 89 16 75 MDPS 90 9 85 Farelo de soja 90 45 80 -/- 2º passo: montar o sistema de equações com 3 incógnitas onde x será farelo de trigo, y MDPS e z farelo de soja: Equação MS: x + y + z = 99 Equação PB: 0,16x + 0,09y + 0,45z = 20 Equação NDT: 0,75x + 0,85y + 0,80z = 75 Sendo: x farelo de trigo; y milho desintegrado com palha e sabugo; z farelo de soja; 0,16 a % de PB do farelo de trigo; 0,09 a % de PB do MDPS; 0,45 a % de PB do farelo de soja; 0,75 a % de NDT do FT; 0,85 a % de NDT do MDPS; 0,80 a % de NDT do FS. Sempre, para a resolução de um sistema de 3 equações, devemos juntar as equações 1 e 2, nesse caso as equações MS e PB, multiplicar os termos da equação 1 (MS) pelo termo da primeira incógnita da equação 2 (PB), que nesse caso é o de x e multiplicar todos os termos da equação PB por -1 para obter a equação 4. Do mesmo modo, posteriormente pegamos as equações MS e NDT que serão multiplicadas do mesmo método e os resultados serão adicionados para a determinação da equação 5. Vamos resolver para elucidar melhor: 1º - determinação da equação 4 através de MS e PB: Equação MS: x + y + z = 99 (x por 0,16) Equação PB: 0,16x + 0,09y + 0,45z = 20 (x por -1) 0,16x + 0,16y + 0,16z = 15,84 -0,16x - 0,09y - 0,45z = -20 0,07y – 0,29z = -4,16 (equação 4) 2º - determinação da equação 5 através de MS e NDT: Equação MS: x + y + z = 99 (x por 0,75) Equação PB: 0,75x + 0,85y + 0,80z = 75 (x por -1) 0,75x + 0,75y + 0,75z = 74,25 -0,75x - 0,85y - 0,80z = -75 -0,10y – 0,05z = -0,75 (equação 5) 3º - determinação de z através das equações 4 e 5: Equação 4: 0,07y – 0,29z = -4,16 (x por -0,10) Equação 5: -0,10y – 0,05z = -0,75 (x por 0,07) -0,007y + 0,029z = 0,416 -0,007y - 0,0035z = -0,0525 0,0255z = 0,3635 z = 14,25 4º - substituindo o valor de z (14,25) na equação 4 vamos determinar y: 0,07y – (0,29 x 14,25) = -4,16 0,07y – 4,1325 = -4,16 0,07y = -4,16 + 4,1325 0,07y = -0,0275 x -1 (para o resultado ser positivo) y = 0,39 5º - usando a equação MS para determinar x: MS = x + y + z = 99 x = 99 – y – z x = 99 – 0,39 – 14,25 x = 84,36 3º passo: resolvendo o sistema em 3 passos com, as equações MS e PB para determinar a equação 4, com a MS e NDT para determinar a equação 5 e com as 4 e 5 para determinar z, encontramos z = 14,25; y = 0,39 e x = 84,36. 4º passo: verificar a ração: Os valores encontrados no sistema de equação refletem a quantidade de MS dos ingredientes. Para calcular o valor dos ingredientes com base na matéria natural, fazemos a divisão da quantidade de MS pela porcentagem de MS do ingrediente, desta forma: - matéria natural dos ingredientes, tal qual será misturada à ração: Farelo de trigo: 84,36/0,89 = 94,8 kg MDPS: 0,39/0,9 = 0,43 kg Farelo de soja: 14,25/0,9 = 15,83 kg Suplemento mineral e sal: 1/1 (como exemplo um suplemento com 100% de MS) = 1 kg - calcular a % dos ingredientes: a soma com base na matéria natural é 112,06, então: Farelo de trigo: 94,8/112,06 x 100 = 84,6% MDPS: 0,43/112,06 x 100 = 0,4% Farelo de soja: 15,83/112,06 x 100 = 14,1% Suplemento e sal: 1/112,06 x 100 = 0,9% - verificar a proteína bruta dos ingredientes: Farelo de trigo: 100 kg ---------- 16% PB 84,36 kg ---------- x% PB x = 84,36 x 16/100 x = 13,5% MDPS: do mesmo modo, teremos: 0,39 x 9/100 = 0,1% Farelo de soja: teremos: 14,25 x 45/100 = 6,4% A soma das proteínas é 20%, a exigência foi suprida. - verificar o NDT dos ingredientes: Farelo de trigo: 100 kg ---------- 75% NDT 84,36 kg ---------- x% NDT x = 84,36 x 75/100 x = 63,27% MDPS: 0,39 x 85/100 = 0,33% Farelo de soja: 14,25 x 80/100 = 11,4% A soma do NDT é 75%, a exigência foi suprida. Verificando os resultados no quadro: Ingrediente MS kg MN kg % final PB % NDT % Farelo de trigo 84,36 94,8 84,6 13,5 63,27 MDPS 0,39 0,43 0,4 0,1 0,33 Farelo de soja 14,25 15,83 14,1 6,4 11,4 Suplemento e sal 1 1 0,9 - - TOTAL 100 112,06 100 20 75 Exigência 100 - 100 20 75 DÉFICE - - - - - -/- O fornecimento da ração deverá ser à vontade. -/- EXEMPLO 2: formular dieta para ovinos da raça Dorper em mantença com média de 70 kg PV. Os alimentos disponíveis na propriedade são cana-de-açúcar com 1% de ureia, raspa de mandioca e farelo de girassol. O animal em mantença ganha cerca de 10 g/dia de PV. Deixar ER de 1,5% para suplemento mineral e sal. 1º passo: exigências nutricionais do animal: Exigência CMS g PB g NDT g Ca g P g TOTAL 1100 110 660 4 3 TOTAL % 100 10 60 0,36 0,27 -/- 2º passo: composição dos alimentos disponíveis: Ingrediente MS % PB % NDT % Ca % P % Cana e ureia 30 11 58 0,21 0,06 Raspa de mandioca 88 3 74 0,15 0,8 Farelo de girassol 90 45 65 0,6 0,9 Calcário 100 - - 38 - Fosfato bicálcico 100 - - 23 18 -/- 3º passo: montar o sistema de resolução com 3 equações e 3 incógnitas para determinar as quantidades de x raspa, y cana com ureia e z farelo de girassol: Equação MS: x + y + z = 98,5 Equação PB: 0,03x + 0,11y + 0,45z = 10 Equação NDT: 0,74x + 0,58y + 0,65z = 60 4º passo: da resolução, análoga ao exemplo 1, encontramos 17,2% de raspa de mandioca, 79,7% de cana com ureia e 1,6% de farelo de girassol. 5º passo: 98,5% de um CMS de 1100 g equivale a 1083,5 g, logo, calculamos a quantidade dos ingredientes para esse consumo: Raspa: 1100 x 17,2% = 189,2 g MS Cana com ureia: 1100 x 79,7% = 876,7 g MS Farelo de girassol: 1100 x 1,6% = 17,6 g MS A soma das quantidades é 1083,5 g MS que corresponde a 98,5% de 1100 g. 6º passo: verificação da ração: Ingrediente MS g PB g NDT g Ca g P g Raspa 189,2 5,7 140 0,3 1,5 Cana 876,7 96,4 508,5 1,8 0,5 Farelo 17,6 7,9 11,5 0,1 0,2 ER - - - - - TOTAL 1083,5 110 660 2,2 2,2 Exigência 1100 110 660 4 3 DÉFICE 16,5 - - 1,8 0,8 -/- 7º passo: a proteína e a energia foram balanceadas, agora vamos ao ajuste mineral com a adição de fosfato bicálcico (18% de P e 23% Ca) e calcário (38% Ca) para suprir o défice de Ca e P: Para P: 100 g de fosfato ---------- 18 g de P x g de fosfato ---------- 0,8 g de P (défice da ração) x = 0,8 x 100/18 = 4,5 g de fosfato bicálcico supre os 0,8 g de P Como o fosfato possui Ca, vamos ver quantos g do mineral existem em 4,5 g: 100 g de fosfato ---------- 23 g de Ca 4,5 g de fosfato ------------ x g de Ca x = 4,5 x 23/100 = 1 g de Ca Como há défice de 1,8 g de Ca na ração e o fosfato possui 1 g de Ca, o novo défice de Ca é 0,8 g, logo: Para Ca: 100 g de calcário ---------- 38 g Ca X g de calcário ---------- 0,8 g Ca x = 0,8 x 100/38 = 2,1 g de calcário supre os 0,8 g de Ca Para P: 4,5 g de fosfato possui 0,8 g de P e 1 g de Ca Para Ca: 2,1 g de calcário possui 0,8 g de Ca 8º passo: composição final da dieta: Ingrediente MS g MN g % final PB g NDT g Ca g P g Raspa 189,2 215 6,8 5,7 140 0,3 1,5 Cana 876,7 2923 92,3 96,4 508,5 1,8 0,5 Farelo 17,6 19,6 0,6 7,9 11,5 0,1 0,2 Fosfato 4,5 4,5 0,2 - - 1,0 0,8 Calcário 2,1 2,1 0,1 - - 0,8 - TOTAL 1090,1 3164,1 100 110 660 4 3 Exigência 1100 - 100 110 660 4 3 DÉFICE 9,9 - - - - - - -/- Por fim, para um ovino Dorper de 70 de kg PV em mantença são necessários o fornecimento de 3 kg de cana-de-açúcar com 1% ureia para a ração volumosa e uma mistura concentrada composta por 220 g de raspa de mandioca, 20 g de farelo de girassol, 5 g de fosfato bicálcico e 2,5 g de calcário para cada animal/dia. Poderá ser adicionado sal comum à ração para usar os 10 g de MS que sobram. A relação Ca:P da dieta é de 1,3:1. -/- EXEMPLO 3: formular dieta para fêmeas que encontram-se magras e estão próximas da estação de monta. A estratégia nutricional é a utilização do flushing que objetiva a administração suplementar de concentrado para maximizar a taxa de concepção. O lote possui 10 ovelhas com 50 kg de PV que estão ganhando cerca de 100 g de PV/dia. Por fim, calcule o total de alimentos necessários para as 10 ovelhas durante um período de 3 semanas, ou 20 dias. Os alimentos disponíveis para a formulação são bagaço de cana, MDPS e farelo de soja. Deixar 2% de ER para suplemento mineral e sal. 1º passo: determinação das exigências nutricionais: Exigência CMS g PB g NDT g Ca g P g Total 1600 152 945 6 3 TOTAL % 100% 9,5% 59% 0,38% 0,19% -/- 2º passo: composição dos alimentos disponíveis: Ingrediente MS % PB % NDT % Ca % P % Bagaço 90 2 47 0,21 0,06 MDPS 88 8 72 0,1 0,2 Farelo de soja 90 50 84 0,29 0,64 Calcário 100 - - 38 - Fosfato bicálcico 100 - - 23 18 -/- 3º passo: montar o sistema de 3 equações e 3 incógnitas onde x é bagaço, y MDPS e z farelo de soja, de modo que uma dada quantidade supra os requerimentos de 0,152 kg de PB (9,5%) e 0,945 kg de NDT (59%). Podemos solucionar de duas formas: 1ª forma: Equação MS: x + y + z = 98 Equação PB: 0,02x + 0,08y + 0,50z = 9,5 Equação NDT: 0,47x + 0,72y + 0,84z = 59 2ª forma: Equação MS: x + y + z = 1,568 Equação PB: 0,02x + 0,08y + 0,50z = 0,152 Equação NDT: 0,47x + 0,72y + 0,84z = 0,945 4º passo: dada a resolução do sistema, seguindo os mesmos passos do exemplo 1, encon-tramos x = 51,7%; y = 35% e z = 11,3%. De 98% do CMS de 1,6 kg ou 1600 g, teremos as quantidades de MS de cada ingrediente: Bagaço: 1600 x 51,7% = 827,2 g MS MDPS: 1600 x 35% = 560 g MS Farelo: 1600 x 11,3% = 180,8 g MS A soma dos ingredientes é 1568 que corresponde a 98% de 1600 g. -/- 5º passo: verificação da ração: Ingrediente MS g PB g NDT g Ca g P g Bagaço 827,2 16,5 389 1,7 0,6 MDPS 560 45 404 0,6 1,1 Farelo 180,8 90,5 152 0,5 1,1 TOTAL 1568 152 945 2,8 2,8 Exigência 1600 152 945 6 3 DÉFICE 32 - - 3,2 0,2 -/- 6º passo: balanceamento de Ca e P: Para P: 1,2 g de fosfato bicálcico possui 0,2 g P e 0,3 g de Ca Para Ca: 7,7 g de calcário possui 2,9 g de Ca 7º passo: verificação e composição final da dieta: Ingrediente MS g MN g % final PB g NDT g Ca g P g Bagaço 827,2 920 52,1 16,5 389 1,7 0,6 MDPS 560 637 36,1 45 404 0,6 1,1 Farelo 180,8 200 11,3 90,5 152 0,5 1,1 Calcário 7,7 7,7 0,4 - - 2,9 - Fosfato 1,2 1,2 0,1 - - 0,3 0,2 TOTAL 1576,9 1765,9 100 152 945 6 3 Exigência 1600 - 100 152 945 6 3 DÉFICE 23,1 - - - - - - -/- Por fim, para cada fêmea com 50 kg de PV são necessários 920 g de bagaço de cana, 640 g de MDPS, 200 g de farelo de soja, 8 g de calcário e 2 g de fosfato bicálcico diariamente. A relação Ca:P da dieta é de 2:1 e a composição é de 9,6% PB, 59,9% NDT, 0,38% Ca e 0,19% de P. Ração para o lote total de 10 fêmeas por 3 semanas ou 20 dias: 8º passo: multiplicar a quantidade de cada ingrediente pelo número de cabeças para determinar o consumo do lote em um dia: Bagaço: 920 g x 10 animais = 9,2 kg/dia, e assim com os demais MDPS: 5,6 kg/dia; farelo de soja: 1,81 kg/dia; calcário: 0,08 kg/dia e fosfato: 0,02 kg/dia 9º passo: para um período de 20 dias: Bagaço: 9,2 x 20 dias = 184 kg, e assim com os demais MDPS: 112 kg; farelo de soja: 36,2 kg; calcário: 1,6 kg e fosfato: 0,4 kg Em um período de flushing de 3 semanas, as fêmeas ganharão 2 kg de PV e serão gastos 184 kg de bagaço de cana, 112 kg de MDPS, 36,2 kg de farelo de soja, 1,6 kg de calcário e 0,24 kg de fosfato bicálcico. Considerando perdas é necessário aumentar a quantidade dos ingredientes em +10% ou +15%. -/- EXEMPLO 4: em uma propriedade no Agreste de Pernambuco, um produtor possui um lote de ovinos da raça Santa-Inês e deseja formular uma dieta para manter seus animais durante um período escasso de chuvas. Os alimentos disponíveis na propriedade são palma, capim tifton e leucena. O peso médio dos animais é de 40 kg PV. 1º passo: exigências dos animais: CMS g PB g NDT g Ca g P g 770 60 410 2 1,5 100% 7,8% 53,2% 0,26% 0,19% -/- 2º passo: composição dos ingredientes: Ingrediente MS % PB % NDT % Ca % P % Palma 10 4 60 1,8 0,2 Tifton 27 13 40 0,54 0,5 Leucena 35 24 65 2 0,2 -/- 3º passo: montar o sistema de equações onde x é palma, y tifton e z leucena: Equação MS: x + y + z = 100 Equação PB: 0,04x + 0,13y + 0,24z = 7,8 Equação NDT: 0,60x + 0,40y + 0,65z = 53,2 Ou: MS: x + y + z = 0,77 PB: 0,04x + 0,13y + 0,24z = 0,06 NDT: 0,60x + 0,40y + 0,65z = 0,41 4º passo: as duas formas podem solucionar o problema, a primeira é expressa em porcentagem e a segunda na quantidade em kg do ingrediente conforme o CMS da equação MS. Logo, da resolução de ambos os sistemas encontramos os seguintes valores: 1ª forma: x = 61,6%; y = 34,9% e z = 3,5% = 100% do CMS 2ª forma: x = 474,3 g; y = 268,7 g e z = 27 g = 770 g do CMS 5º passo: verificação da ração: Ingrediente MS g PB g NDT g Ca g P g Palma 474,3 19 284,8 8,5 0,9 Tifton 268,7 35 107,6 1,4 1,3 Leucena 27 6 17,6 0,5 0,05 TOTAL 770 60 410 10,4 2,25 Exigência 770 60 410 2 1,5 DÉFICE - - - +8,4 +0,75 -/- 6º passo: há uma exponencial diferença entre a quantidade de cálcio e a de fósforo, dado que os ingredientes são ricos em Ca. A relação máxima que os ruminantes suportam entre Ca:P chega a 3:1 e o balanço da ração é de 4,6:1, logo é necessário a adição de P para diminuir a diferença. Em nosso caso, utilizaremos uma fonte única de P com 24%. Para um bom balanceamento, vamos diminuir a relação para 2,6:1, para isso é necessário que haja 4 g de P na ração e há 2,25 g, então é necessário a adição de 1,75 g de P. Logo: Para P: 100 g produto ---------- 24 g P X g produto ---------- 1,75 g P x = 7,3 g de fonte de P com 24%. -/- 7º passo: composição final da dieta: Ingrediente MS g MN g % final PB g NDT g Ca g P g Palma 474,3 4743 81,5 19 284,8 8,5 0,9 Tifton 268,7 995,2 17,1 35 107,6 1,4 1,3 Leucena 27 77,2 1,3 6 17,6 0,5 0,05 Fonte de P 7,3 7,3 0,1 - - - 1,75 TOTAL 777,3 5822,7 100 60 410 10,4 4 Exigência 770 - 100 60 410 2 1,5 DÉFICE +7,3 - - - - +8,4 +2,5 -/- Por fim, para mantença do lote de ovinos com 40 kg PV, situados no Agreste de Pernambuco, são necessários o fornecimento de 4,7 kg de palma forrageira picada, 1 kg de tifton, 80 g de leucena e 8 g de fonte de P com 24% para cada animal diariamente. O animal vai consumir 5,82 kg de ração por dia para suprir seu requerimento de 0,77 kg de MS. A relação Ca:P da dieta, após a adição da fonte de P, é aceitável ao animal, ou seja, não o prejudica já que está dentro dos limites, sendo de 2,6:1. A composição da ração é 7,7% PB, 52,7% NDT, 1,3% Ca e 0,5% de P. -/- EXEMPLO 5: formular dieta para cordeiros desmamados precocemente com crescimen-to moderado. O lote possui peso médio de 20 kg e estão ganhando cerca de 250 g de PV/dia. Os alimentos disponíveis são fubá de milho, farelo de trigo e farelo de soja. Calcule a quantidade de ração necessária para um lote de 100 cordeiros confinados para serem abatidos com 40 kg PV. Deixar 1,5% para suplemento mineral e sal. 1º passo: exigências do animal: CMS g PB g NDT g Ca g P g 1000 168 800 5,5 3 100% 16,8% 80% 0,55% 0,30% -/- 2º passo: composição dos ingredientes: Ingredientes MS % PB % NDT % Ca % P % Fubá de milho 88 9 86 0,03 0,31 Farelo de trigo 88 16 75 0,15 0,80 Farelo de soja 90 50 84 0,30 0,65 -/- 3º passo: sistema de equações onde x é milho, y farelo de trigo e z farelo de soja: Equação MS: x + y + z = 98,5 Equação PB: 0,09x + 0,16y + 0,50z = 16,8 Equação NDT: 0,86x + 0,75y + 0,84z = 80 Ou: MS: x + y + z = 0,985 PB: 0,09x + 0,16y + 0,50z = 0,168 NDT: 0,86x + 0,75y + 0,84z = 0,800 4º passo: da resolução através da segunda forma, encontramos os seguintes valores: Xmilho: 455 g MS Ytrigo: 406 g MS Zsoja: 124 g MS 5º passo: verificação da ração: Ingredientes MS g PB g NDT g Ca g P g Milho 455 41 391,3 0,14 1,4 Farelo de trigo 406 65 304,5 0,61 3,2 Farelo de soja 124 62 104,2 0,37 0,8 TOTAL 985 168 800 1,12 5,4 Exigência 1000 168 800 5,5 3 DÉFICE -15 - - -4,38 +2,4 -/- 6º passo: ajuste mineral com calcário usando o ER de 1,5% ou 15 g de um CMS 1000 g. 100 g ---------- 38 g Ca x g ---------- 4,38 g Ca x = 12 g de calcário 7º passo: verificação e composição final da dieta: Ingredientes MS g MN g % final PB g NDT g Ca g P g Milho 455 517,1 45,8 41 391,3 0,14 1,4 Farelo de trigo 406 461,4 40,9 65 304,5 0,61 3,2 Farelo de soja 124 137,8 12,2 62 104,2 0,37 0,8 Calcário 12 12 1,1 - - 4,5 - TOTAL 997 1128,3 100 168 800 5,62 5,4 Exigência 1000 - 100 168 800 5,5 3 DÉFICE -3 - - - - +0,12 +2,4 -/- Por fim, serão necessários diariamente o fornecimento de 1,13 kg de ração/ani-mal/dia composta por 45,8% de milho, 40,9% de farelo de trigo, 12,2% de farelo de soja e 1,1% de calcário. O CMS da ração é exatamente o exigido pelo animal e a ração possui balanço Ca:P de 1:1. Cálculo da ração para lote de 100 cordeiros para engorda de 20 kg PV com GPD 0,25 kg 8º passo: quantidade/dia: Cada animal deverá consumir uma certa quantidade, para determinar o total para 100 animais basta multiplicar a quantidade pelo número de animais, no caso 100, logo: Milho: 51,7 kg/dia; trigo: 46,14 kg/dia; soja: 13,78 kg/dia e calcário: 1,2 kg/dia 9º passo: quantidade total para tempo de confinamento: Basta multiplicar a quantidade de alimento/dia pelo número de dias da engorda. Os animais entraram em confinamento com 20 kg e ganham 0,25 kg/dia, para alcançar 40 kg serão necessários, portanto, 80 dias (20 kg PV/0,25 kg). Logo: Milho: 4,14 toneladas; trigo: 3,7 ton.; soja: 1,1 ton. e calcário: 96 kg. -/- EXEMPLO 6: formular dieta para cordeiros da raça Santa Inês que foram desmamados precocemente. O lote possui peso de 10 kg e possui alto potencial de crescimento, ou seja, ganham, em média, 250 g de PV/dia. Os alimentos disponíveis para a formulação são raspa de mandioca, milho e farelo de soja. Por fim, calcule a ração necessária para 100 cordeiros para um tempo de engorda onde os animais sairão para abate com 70 kg de PV. 1º passo: exigências nutricionais do animal: CMS g PB g NDT g Ca g P g 600 160 480 6 3 100% 26,7% 80% 1% 0,5% -/- 2º passo: composição dos alimentos: Ingrediente MS % PB % NDT % Ca % P % Raspa de mandioca 88 3 74 0,15 0,8 Milho 89 9 86 0,03 0,31 Farelo de soja 90 45 80 0,3 0,65 -/- 3º passo: montar o sistema de equações onde x é raspa, y milho e z farelo de soja: Equação MS: x + y + z = 0,600 Equação PB: 0,03x + 0,09y + 0,45z = 0,160 Equação NDT: 0,74x + 0,86y + 0,80z = 0,480 4º passo: dada a resolução do sistema, encontramos os seguintes valores em MS: x = 0,140 kg MS de raspa de mandioca y = 0,140 kg MS de milho z = 0,320 kg MS de farelo de soja 5º passo: verificação da ração: Ingrediente MS g PB g NDT g Ca g P g Raspa 140 4 103,6 0,21 1,1 Milho 140 12,6 120,4 0,03 0,4 Farelo 320 144 256 0,96 2,1 TOTAL 600 160,6 480 1,2 3,6 Exigência 600 160 480 6 3 DÉFICE - - - -4,8 +0,6 -/- 6º passo: balancear Ca e P adicionando calcário: 13 g de calcário possui 4,9 g de Ca 7º passo: verificação e composição final da dieta: Ingrediente MS g MN g % final PB g NDT g Ca g P g Raspa de mandioca 140 159,1 23,2 4 103,6 0,21 1,1 Milho 140 157,3 23 12,6 120,4 0,03 0,4 Farelo de soja 320 355,6 51,9 144 256 0,96 2,1 Calcário 13 13 1,9 - - 4,9 - TOTAL 613 685 100 160,6 480 6,1 3,6 Exigência 600 - 100 160 480 6 3 DÉFICE +13 - - - - - - -/- Por fim, para cordeiros de 10 kg PV com alto potencial e GPD de 0,25 kg é necessária uma ração que contenha 160 g de raspa de mandioca, 160 g de milho moído, 360 g de farelo de soja e 15 g de calcário para cada animal diariamente. O CMS da ração ultrapassou a exigência do animal em 13 g o que é aceitável. O balanço Ca:P é de 1,7:1 que está dentro da zona de conforto. A composição da dieta é de 26,2% PB, 78,3% NDT, 1% Ca e 0,59% P. Cálculo da ração para lote de 100 cordeiros para abate com 70 kg PV 8º passo: quantidade de cada alimento diariamente: Raspa: 159,1 g x 100 animais = 15,91 kg, seguindo o mesmo esquema: milho: 15,73 kg; soja: 35,56 kg e calcário 1,3 kg. 9º passo: os animais deverão ir para abate com 70 kg, logo deverão ganhar 60 kg de PV. Com um ganho de 250 g/dia, o tempo total de engorda será de 240 dias (60 kg/0,25 kg), logo: Raspa: 15,91 x 240 = 3,82 toneladas, seguindo igual: milho: 3,78 ton.; soja: 8,54 ton. e calcário: 312 kg. -/- EXEMPLO 7: em uma propriedade no Rio Grande do Sul um ovinocultor desmamou 50 animais com 30 kg PV para confiná-los. A estimativa é que os animais ganhem 150 g de PV diariamente até que alcancem 50 kg para abate. A propriedade dispõe de silagem de capim-elefante, aveia e glúten de milho para fornecer aos animais. Formule uma dieta para esses animais para ser fornecida diariamente e a quantidade de ingredientes neces-sária para o período de engorda. DADOS, segundo QUADROS & CRUZ, as exigências são CMS: 3,35% PV, PB: 115 g; NDT: 630 g. 1º passo: composição dos ingredientes: Ingrediente MS % PB % NDT % Silagem de capim-elefante 27 5 60 Aveia 88 11 65 Glúten de milho 90 62 85 -/- 2º passo: sabendo-se que o CMS de 3,35% de 30 kg equivale a 1 kg MS, montamos o sistema de equações onde x é silagem, y aveia e z glúten: Equação MS: x + y + z = 1 Equação PB: 0,05x + 0,11y + 0,62z = 0,115 Equação NDT: 0,60x + 0,65y + 0,85z = 0,630 3º passo: da resolução do sistema encontramos: x = 830 g MS de silagem y = 63 g MS de aveia z = 107 g MS de glúten de milho 4º passo: verificação da ração: Ingrediente MS g PB g NDT g Silagem de capim-elefante 830 41,5 498 Aveia 63 7 71 Glúten de milho 107 66,5 91 TOTAL 1000 115 630 Exigência 1000 115 630 DÉFICE - - - -/- 5º passo: composição final da ração com base na matéria natural tal como vai para o misturador: Ingrediente MN g % final Silagem de capim-elefante 3074,1 94,2 Aveia 71,6 2,2 Glúten de milho 118,9 3,6 TOTAL 3264,6 100 -/- Por fim, para cada ovino/dia é necessário a administração de 3,1 kg de silagem de capim-elefante e uma mistura de 200 g de concentrado com 80 g de aveia e 120 g de glúten de milho. O CMS da ração é exatamente a exigência do animal. Neste exemplo não determinamos o conteúdo mineral da dieta, mas você pode fazê-lo de acordo com o percentual de mineral do dado ingrediente. Quantidade de alimentos/dia e por período de engorda 6º passo: quantidade de ingredientes por dia, basta multiplicar quantidade/animal x total de animais: Silagem: 153,7 kg/dia; aveia: 3,6 kg/dia e glúten: 6 kg/dia 7º passo: quantidade por período de engorda: os animais têm 30 kg PV e deverão sair para abate com 50 kg PV, logo deverão ganhar 20 kg PV. Como ganham cerca de 0,15 kg/dia o período de engorda será de 134 dias (20 kg/0,15 kg). Então: Silagem: 153,7 x 134 = 20,6 ton.; aveia: 482 kg e glúten: 804 kg -/- EXEMPLO 8: em uma propriedade na cidade de Belo Jardim, Pernambuco, 10 ovelhas estão nas primeiras semanas de lactação, todas tiveram parto de um cordeiro. O lote possui peso variado, mas o médio é de 60 kg PV e perdem cerca de 25 g/dia. Os alimentos disponíveis para a formulação da dieta são capim tifton com melaço, casca de soja e farelo de mamona detoxificado. 1º passo: determinação das exigências nutricionais: CMS g PB g NDT g Ca g P g 2300 320 1500 10 7 100% 13,9% 65,2% 0,43% 0,3% -/- 2º passo: composição dos ingredientes: Ingrediente MS % PB % NDT % Ca % P % Casca de soja 90 12 75 0,6 0,2 Capim + melaço 35 5 25 0,32 0,12 Farelo de mamona 90 40 40 0,7 0,7 -/- 3º passo: montar o sistema de equações onde x é casca de soja, y é capim tifton com melaço e z é farelo de mamona: Equação MS: x + y + z = 2,3 Equação PB: 0,12x + 0,05y + 0,40z = 0,32 Equação NDT: 0,75x + 0,25y + 0,40z = 1,5 4º passo: da resolução do sistema, encontramos: x = 1,78 kg MS de casca de soja y = 0,29 kg MS de capim + melaço z = 0,23 kg MS de farelo de mamona O total é exatamente o CMS requerido de 2,3 kg MS. 5º passo: verificação da ração: Ingrediente MS g PB g NDT g Ca g P g Casca de soja 1780 213,6 1335 5,7 2,1 Capim + melaço 290 14,5 73 1,8 0,6 Farelo de mamona 230 92 92 1,6 1,6 TOTAL 2300 320,1 1500 9,1 4,3 Exigência 2300 320 1500 10 7 DÉFICE - - - -0,9 -2,7 -/- 6º passo: há deficiência de Ca e P, vamos balanceá-los: Para P: 15 g de fosfat. (shrink)

A remarkable feature of the philosophical work on conspiracy theory theory has been that most philosophers agree there is nothing inherently problematic about conspiracy theories (AKA the thesis of particularism). Recent work, however, has challenged this consensus view, arguing that there really is something epistemically wrong with conspiracy theorising (AKA generalism). Are particularism and generalism incompatible? By looking at just how much particularists and generalists might have to give away to make their theoretical viewpoints compatible, I will argue that particularists (...) can accept many of the concerns that motivate generalism because generalism can never be about ‘all’ conspiracy theories without being either ahistorical or apolitical. In the end generalist critiques are best seen as useful guidelines or considerations for the appraising of particular conspiracy theories. (shrink)

Conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists have been accused of a great many sins, but are the conspiracy theories conspiracy theorists believe epistemically problematic? Well, according to some recent work, yes, they are. Yet a number of other philosophers like Brian L. Keeley, Charles Pigden, Kurtis Hagen, Lee Basham, and the like have argued ‘No!’ I will argue that there are features of certain conspiracy theories which license suspicion of such theories. I will also argue that these features only license a (...) limited suspicion of these conspiracy theories, and thus we need to be careful about generalising from such suspicions to a view of the warrant of conspiracy theories more generally. To understand why, we need to get to the bottom of what exactly makes us suspicious of certain conspiracy theories, and how being suspicious of a conspiracy theory does not always tell us anything about how likely the theory in question is to be false. (shrink)

This reply to an ongoing debate between conspiracy theory researchers from different disciplines exposes the conceptual confusions that underlie some of the disagreements in conspiracy theory research. Reconciling these conceptual confusions is important because conspiracy theories are a multidisciplinary topic and a profound understanding of them requires integrative insights from different fields. Specifically, we distinguish research focussing on conspiracy *theories* (and theorizing) from research of conspiracy *belief* (and mindset, theorists) and explain how particularism with regards to conspiracy theories does not (...) mean we cannot define a problematic subclass of conspiracy beliefs, while avoiding the problems of generalism. We hope this reply helps conspiracy theory researchers recognize the differences between studying conspiracy theories and conspiracy beliefs and appreciate the possibilities for fruitful, integrative, and interdisciplinary research. (shrink)

Looking at the recent spate of claims about “fake news” which appear to be a new feature of political discourse, I argue that fake news presents an interesting problem in epistemology. Te phenomena of fake news trades upon tolerating a certain indiference towards truth, which is sometimes expressed insincerely by political actors. Tis indiference and insincerity, I argue, has been allowed to fourish due to the way in which we have set the terms of the “public” epistemology that maintains what (...) is considered “rational” public discourse. I argue one potential salve to the problem of fake news is to challenge this public epistemology by injecting a certain ethical consideration back into the discourse. (shrink)

I’m to push back on Hill’s (2022) criticism in four ways. First: we need some context for the debate that occurred in the pages of the Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective that so concerns Hill. Second: getting precise with our terminology (and not working with stereotypes) is the only theoretically fruitful way to approach the problem of conspiracy theories. Third: I address Hill’s claim there is no evidence George W. Bush or Tony Blair accused their critics, during the build-up (...) the invasion of Iraq in 2003ACE, as being “conspiracy theorists.” Fourth (and finally): I will gently suggest that Hill has succumbed to a stereotypical view of work in Philosophy on conspiracy theories. (shrink)

In this paper I interrogate the notion of `debunking conspiracy theories’, arguing that the term `debunk’ carries with it pejorative implications, given that the verb `to debunk’ is commonly understood as `to show the wrongness of a thing or concept’. As such, the notion of `debunking conspiracy theories’ builds in the notion that such theories are not just wrong but ought to be shown as being wrong. I argue that we should avoid the term `debunk’ and focus on investigating conspiracy (...) theories. Looking at recent research work in epistemology on conspiracy theory, I argue that the best way to avoid talk of `debunking’ conspiracy theories is by working with a non-pejorative definition of `conspiracy theory’, and forming communities of inquiry which allow us to investigate the warrant of such theories without the prejudice associated with working with a pejorative definition. (shrink)

Belief in conspiracy theories is typically considered irrational, and as a consequence of this, conspiracy theorists––those who dare believe some conspiracy theory––have been charged with a variety of epistemic or psychological failings. Yet recent philosophical work has challenged the view that belief in conspiracy theories should be considered as typically irrational. By performing an intra-group analysis of those people we call “conspiracy theorists”, we find that the problematic traits commonly ascribed to the general group of conspiracy theorists turn out to (...) be merely a set of stereotypical behaviours and thought patterns associated with a purported subset of that group. If we understand that the supposed prob- lem of belief in conspiracy theories is centred on the beliefs of this purported sub- set––the conspiracists––then we can reconcile the recent philosophical contribu- tions to the wider academic debate on the rationality of belief in conspiracy theories. (shrink)

Judging the warrant of conspiracy theories can be difficult, and often we rely upon what the experts tell us when it comes to assessing whether particular conspiracy theories ought to be believed. However, whereas there are recognised experts in the sciences, I argue that only are is no such associated expertise when it comes to the things we call `conspiracy theories,' but that the conspiracy theorist has good reason to be suspicious of the role of expert endorsements when it comes (...) to conspiracy theories and their rivals. The kind of expertise, then, we might associate with conspiracy theories is largely improvised—in that it lacks institutional features—and, I argue, ideally the product of a community of inquiry. (shrink)

In the literature on conspiracy theories, the least contentious part of the academic discourse would appear to be what we mean by a “conspiracy”: a secretive plot between two or more people toward some end. Yet what, exactly, is the connection between something being a conspiracy and it being secret? Is it possible to conspire without also engaging in secretive behavior? To dissect the role of secrecy in con- spiracies – and thus contribute to the larger debate on the epistemology (...) of conspir- acy theories – we dene the concepts of “conspiracy,” “conspirator,” and “secret,” and argue that while conspirators might typically be thought to commit to keeping secrets once their conspiracy is underway, the idea that conspiracies are necessarily secretive to start with is not as obvious as previously thought. (shrink)

Conspiracy theories are typically thought to be examples of irrational beliefs, and thus unlikely to be warranted. However, recent work in Philosophy has challenged the claim that belief in conspiracy theories is irrational, showing that in a range of cases, belief in conspiracy theories is warranted. However, it is still often said that conspiracy theories are unlikely relative to non-conspiratorial explanations which account for the same phenomena. However, such arguments turn out to rest upon how we define what gets counted (...) both as a ‘conspiracy’ and a ‘conspiracy theory’, and such arguments rest upon shaky assumptions. It turns out that it is not clear that conspiracy theories are prima facie unlikely, and so the claim that such theories do not typically appear in our accounts of the best explanations for particular kinds of events needs to be reevaluated. (shrink)

An overview of the current epistemic literature concerning conspiracy theories, as well as indications for future research avenues on the topic.

A reply to Patrick Stokes' “Between Generalism and Particularism About Conspiracy Theory".

Research on conspiracy theories has proliferated since 2016, in part due to the US election of President Trump, the COVID-19 pandemic, and increasingly threatening environmental conditions. In the rush to publication given these concerning social consequences, researchers have increasingly treated as definitive a 2016 paper by Michael Wood (Political Psychology, 37(5), 695–705, 2016) that concludes that the phrase “conspiracy theory” has no negative effect upon people’s willingness to endorse a claim. We revisit Wood’s findings and its (re)uptake in the recent (...) literature. Is the label “conspiracy theory” a pejorative? If so, does it sway or affect people’s belief in specific claims of conspiracy (i.e. particular conspiracy theories), or is the effect one that concerns claims of conspiracy more generally (i.e. all conspiracy theories)? Through an examination of the conceptual and methodological scope of Wood’s work and the results of our similar quasi-experimental design, we argue that it is premature to suggest the label “conspiracy theory” has no impact on the believability of a claim, or that it has no rhetorical power. (shrink)

Section 1 reviews Strawson’s logic of presuppositions. Strawson’s justification is critiqued and a new justification proposed. Section 2 extends the logic of presuppositions to cases when the subject class is necessarily empty, such as (x)((Px & ~Px) → Qx) . The strong similarity of the resulting logic with Richard Diaz’s truth-relevant logic is pointed out. Section 3 further extends the logic of presuppositions to sentences with many variables, and a certain valuation is proposed. It is noted that, given this valuation, (...) Gödel’s sentence becomes neither true nor false. The similarity of this outcome with Goldstein and Gaifman’s solution of the Liar paradox, which is discussed in section 4, is emphasized. Section 5 returns to the definition of meaningfulness; the meaninglessness of certain sentences with empty subjects and of the Liar sentence is discussed. The objective of this paper is to show how all of the above-mentioned concepts are interrelated. (shrink)

This introduction to this special issue of Inquiry looks at recent work in the philosophy of conspiracy theory theory. Looking at two related worries expressed in the wider conspiracy theory theory (the academic study of conspiracy theories) – the Problem of Conspiracy Theories and the Problem of Conspiracy Theorists – this special issue argues that recent work in the philosophy of conspiracy theories is getting all the more closer to not just an epistemic understanding of what, if anything, is wrong (...) with belief in conspiracy theories, but also a framework for both investigating conspiracy theories and understanding how we should talk about the beliefs of conspiracy theorists. (shrink)

A response to Lee Basham's 'The Need for Accountable Witnesses: A Reply to Dentith'.

A reply to Gérald Bronner, Véronique Campion-Vincent, Sylvain Delouvée, Sebastian Dieguez, Nicolas Gauvrit, Anthony Lantian, and Pascal Wagner-Egger's piece, '“They” Respond: Comments on Basham et al.’s “Social Science’s Conspiracy-Theory Panic: Now They Want to Cure Everyone”.

An analysis of the recent efforts to define what counts as a "conspiracy theory", in which I argue that the philosophical and non-pejorative definition best captures the phenomenon researchers of conspiracy theory wish to interrogate.

A reply to “Why ‘Healthy Conspiracy Theories’ Are (Oxy)morons” by Pascal Wagner-Egger, Gérald Bronner, Sylvain Delouvée, Sebastian Dieguez and Nicolas Gauvrit.

The scope of Platonism is extended by introducing the concept of a “Platonic computer” which is incorporated in metacomputics. The theoretical framework of metacomputics postulates that a Platonic computer exists in the realm of Forms and is made by, of, with, and from metaconsciousness. Metaconsciousness is defined as the “power to conceive, to perceive, and to be self-aware” and is the formless, con-tentless infinite potentiality. Metacomputics models how metaconsciousness generates the perceived actualities including abstract entities and physical and nonphysical realities. (...) It is postulated that this is achieved via digital computation using the Platonic computer. The introduction of a Platonic computer into the realm of Forms thus bridges the “inverse explanatory gap” and therefore solves the “inverse hard problem of consciousness” in the philosophy of mind. (shrink)

Talk of fake news is rife in contemporary politics, but what is fake news, and how, if anything, does it differ from news which is fake? I argue that in order to make sense of the phenomenon of fake news, it is necessary to first define it and then show what does and does not fall under the rubric of ‘fake news’. I then go on to argue that fake news is not a new problem. Rather, if there is problem (...) with fake news it is its centrality in contemporary public debate. (shrink)

The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the benefits of international data sharing. Data sharing enabled the health care policy makers to make decisions based on real-time data, it enabled the tracking of the virus, and importantly it enabled the development of vaccines that were crucial to mitigating the impact of the virus. This data sharing is not the norm as data sharing needs to navigate complex ethical and legal rules, and in particular, the fragmented application of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). (...) The introduction of the draft regulation for a European Health Data Space (EHDS) in May 2022 seeks to address some of these legal issues. If passed, it will create an obligation to share electronic health data for certain secondary purposes. While there is a clear need to address the legal complexities involved with data sharing, it is critical that any proposed reforms are in line with ethical principles and the expectations of the data subjects. In this paper we offer a critique of the EHDS and offer some recommendations for this evolving regulatory space. (shrink)

Conspiracies are, by definition, a group activity; to conspire requires two or more people working together towards some end, typically in secret. Conspirators have intentions; this is borne out by the fact they want some end and are willing to engage in action to achieve. Of course, what these intentions are can be hard to fathom: historians have written a lot about the intentions of the assassins of Julius Caesar, for example; did they want to restore the Republic; was Marcus (...) Brutus lusting after power; was it an attempt to curb the ambitions of the plebeian class, who saw in Caesar someone not unlike themselves? If intentions can be hard to infer, who is a knowing conspirator and who is a dupe is almost as tricky to parse. Not all purported members of a conspiracy are conspirators, even if they aid and abet the conspiracy. Take, for example, the notorious lax engineer who the conspirators know will sign off on substandard building compliance measures, making it all the easier for them to plant their controlled demolitions. On some account of causal or even moral responsibility the lax engineer would then be responsible for the subsequent event, the one the conspirators desired. Yet it also seems clear that even if she is responsible in some sense for the culminating event of the conspiracy, it is clear that they did not conspire. Or, at least, we would like to think so, although should the authorities find out about the lax engineer’s involvement, they may well be considered part of the conspiracy, especially if the conspirators do their best to hide their own involvement or identities. (shrink)

A reply to Patrick Stokes' 'Reluctance and Suspicion'—itself a reply to an early piece by myself replying to Stokes—in which I clarify what it is I intend when talking about how we should investigate conspiracy theories.

Typical analyses of belief in conspiracy theories have it that identifying as a conspiracy theorist is irrational. However, given that we know conspiracies occur, and theories about said conspiracies can be warranted, should we really be scared of the locution 'I'm a conspiracy theorist...'?

It is no surprise that the philosophy of religion, the many disciplines counted within the study of religion and theology, and religion-specific studies, all have their own methods and interests, and often proceed necessarily as conversations among small groups of experts. But the intellectual cogency and credibility of such studies also entails a problematization of the boundaries that divide them. While disciplinary distinctions are necessary and valuable, a freer flow of ideas and questions across boundaries is to the benefit of (...) all concerned. In particular, the philosophy of religion proceeds more fruitfully if, among its several dimensions, it is also intentionally comparative and inter-religious, vulnerable to the questions raised by insiders to traditions, and open to the implications of ideas for religious practice. (shrink)

A review of Bernard Will's "Believing Weird Things".

A review of Anna Elisabeth Galeotti's "Political Self-Deception".

In the first part of this article we briefly describe the design and development of a Consciousness Studies concentration at Goddard College, a student centered, progressive educational institution in the northeastern United States. We emphasize the tensions we experienced between different orientations in Consciousness Studies and especially the one related to the scientific and transpersonal ends of the spectrum of consciousness. In the second part, we relate the scientific‐transpersonal issue that we experienced at Goddard to the broader theory and practice (...) of Consciousness Studies. We also link the latter to the so‐called explanatory gap between third and first person forms of consciousness and the call for first person methods of exploring consciousness. Our conclusion is that the scientific approach has the edge and is at risk of assimilating other approaches to the detriment of Consciousness Studies. In our view, the future development of Consciousness Studies, both in theory and practice, requires several different approaches from the scientific to the transpersonal and privileging one is to narrow the field of possibilities and to risk falling prey to one‐sidedness. (shrink)

From the back cover: "Un repaso de las publicaciones que han abordado las relaciones e intercambios entre los Estados Unidos de América y España, arroja un saldo positivo en los ámbitos sociológico, político y cultural; no así en el estricto campo de la filosofía, necesitado todavía de mayores estudios. Los once trabajos que integran Estados Unidos/España: Diálogos filosóficosrepresentan un esmerado aporte en esta dirección: el de paliar el citado desequilibrio mediante la reflexión en torno al influjo del pensamiento estadounidense en (...) España y a la recepción de la filosofía española —a través de Unamuno, Ortega y Gasset y Julián Marías— en la patria de Walt Whitman.“Es muy deseable que este activo diálogo filosófico entre los Estados Unidos y España se desarrolle todavía más en los próximos años” (cit. Jaime Nubiola). Esta ha sido la principal aspiración de esta obra: ensanchar este intercambio, esclarecer sus múltiples direcciones y abrir nuevos caminos de investigación.". (shrink)

If an AI makes a significant contribution to a research paper, should it be listed as a co-author? The current guidelines in the field have been created to reduce duplication of credit between two different authors in scientific articles. A new computer program could be identified and credited for its impact in an AI research paper that discusses an early artificial intelligence system which is currently under development at Lawrence Berkeley National. One way to imagine the future of artificial intelligence (...) is that it will be much less expensive to develop new technologies than to create new ways of thinking. Now we have done this technology, and now we go and ask why in the end it is the artificial intelligence that takes over? Well, it is not that artificial intelligence is bad, but it is not as effective as human minds or as intelligent as machine minds. Even in the past, when computers were more intelligent than humans, not all the AI programs have been so intelligent as to be intelligent enough to be called intelligent. (shrink)

The influence of St. Teresa of Jesus in St. Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer is well known, but it was especially stressed in his writings. This paper concentrates on the most famous book of St. Josemaría, The Way. The presence of Teresian thought in this work is researched, considering the way Escrivá integrates it in his personal doctrine, and particularly how he adopts it in order to establish the cornerstone of his message: contemplation in daily life.

The rise of experimental philosophy has placed metaphilosophical questions, particularly those concerning concepts, at the center of philosophical attention. X-phi offers empirically rigorous methods for identifying conceptual content, but what exactly it contributes towards evaluating conceptual content remains unclear. We show how x-phi complements Rudolf Carnap’s underappreciated methodology for concept determination, explication. This clarifies and extends x-phi’s positive philosophical import, and also exhibits explication’s broad appeal. But there is a potential problem: Carnap’s account of explication was limited to empirical and (...) logical concepts, but many concepts of interest to philosophers are essentially normative. With formal epistemology as a case study, we show how x-phi assisted explication can apply to normative domains. (shrink)

Using two decades worth of experimental philosophy (aka x-phi), Edouard Machery argues in Philosophy within its Proper Bounds (OUP, 2017) that philosophers’ use of the “method of cases” is unreliable because it has a strong tendency to elicit different intuitive responses from non-philosophers. And because, as Machery argues, appealing to such cases is usually the only way for philosophers to acquire the kind of knowledge they seek, an extensive philosophical skepticism follows. I argue that Machery’s “Unreliability” argument fails because, once (...) its premises are percisified, they are either self-defeating or without justification. This is a significant result because Machery’s arguments are the most widely cited and discussed x-phi arguments for philosophical skepticism and many hold that Machery provides the most empirically informed, convincing, and thus best case for this kind of skepticism. So, if my arguments are sound, then the best x-phi argument for philosophical skepticism fails. I further argue that this result provides strong reason to believe the more general conclusion that “negative” x-phi is likely doomed: x-phi likely can never support a substantive philosophical skepticism. Ultimately, I argue for the broad conclusion that all empirically minded arguments for philosophical skepticism are likely to fail for the same reasons that Machery’s does, i.e. they are (likely) self-defeating. (shrink)

forall x: Calgary is a full-featured textbook on formal logic. It covers key notions of logic such as consequence and validity of arguments, the syntax of truth-functional propositional logic TFL and truth-table semantics, the syntax of first-order (predicate) logic FOL with identity (first-order interpretations), symbolizing English in TFL and FOL, and Fitch-style natural deduction proof systems for both TFL and FOL. It also deals with some advanced topics such as modal logic, soundness, and functional completeness. Exercises with solutions are available. (...) It is provided in PDF (for screen reading, printing, and a special version for dyslexics), HTML, and in LaTeX source code. (shrink)

The first aim of the paper is to show that under certain conditions generative syntax can be made suitable for Montague semantics, based on his type logic. One of the conditions is to make branching in the so-called X-bar syntax strictly binary, This makes it possible to provide an adequate semantics for Noun Phrases by taking them as referring to sets of collections of sets of entities ( type <ett,t>) rather than to sets of sets of entities (ett).

How does Socrates conceive of the good of the city-state in the Republic? Does he conceive of the city as a kind of organic entity, with a good of its own that is independent of the good of the citizens? Or does he think the good of the city includes the good of the citizens. If so, how? Santas argues that the good of the city must include the good of the citizens. Specifically, he argues that the city is (...) organized so that the citizens can attain a great good: the ability to do well the work for which they are best suited by nature and education. In these comments, I raise a challenge for Santas’s interpretation and I provide an alternative account of how the good of the city includes the good of the citizens. On my view, the city is organized so that all of the citizens can attain what is in fact the greatest good for the individual: virtue and the rule of reason. (shrink)

Recent developments in experimental philosophy (‘x-phi’) suggest that there is a new way in which the empirical and normative dimensions of bioethics can be brought into successful dialogue with one another. It revolves around conceptual analysis – though not the kind of conceptual analysis one might perform in an armchair. Following Édouard Machery, this is Conceptual Analysis Rebooted. In short, morally-pertinent medical concepts like ‘treatment’, ‘euthanasia’ and ‘sanctity of life’ can each have several meanings that underwrite inferences with different moral (...) implications. X-phi shows us that an experimental approach to conceptual analysis can make explicit the implicit structures that underpin our thinking about such concepts. By presenting concrete examples, I aim to offer a glimpse of an empirically-grounded, practically-normative 'bioxphi' that demystifies and distinguishes medical concepts, assesses the normative inferences these concepts dispose us to draw and revises those inferences that are deficient. (shrink)

Ad hoc concepts feature prominently in lexical pragmatics. A speaker can use a word or phrase to communicate an ad hoc concept that is different from the lexically encoded concept and the hearer can construct the intended ad hoc concept pragmatically during utterance comprehension. I argue that some philosophical concepts have origins as ad hoc concepts, and such concepts pose a challenge for experimental philosophy regarding these concepts. To illustrate this, I consider philosophers’ ‘what-it’s-like’-concepts and experimental philosophy of consciousness.

Inauthenticity can be understood as following the herd, in line with a metaphor from Nietzsche. The idea of inauthentic philosophy is explored in an analysis of the titles of articles in philosophy journals, particularly those following the general pattern of 'x and the Politics of y'.

X. Mantık Çalıştayı 2-4 Eylül 2021 tarihlerinde Kapadokya Üniversitesi’nin ev sahipliğinde gerçekleştirildi. Mantık Derneği’nin 10 yıldır aralıksız bir şekilde düzenlediği çalıştaylara, Covid-19 dolayısıyla iki yıl ara verilmek zorunda kalındı. Çalıştay’ın pandemi sonrası tekrar gerçekleştirilmesinde her türlü olanağı sağlayan Kapadokya Üniversitesi’ne, Rektör Prof. Dr. Hasan Ali Karasar’a ve emeği geçen herkese teşekkürlerimizi sunuyoruz.

In Climate Leviathan, Mann and Wainwright address the political implications of climate change by theorizing four possible planetary futures: Climate Leviathan as capitalist planetary sovereignty, Climate Mao as non-capitalist planetary sovereignty, Climate Behemoth as capitalist non-planetary sovereignty, and Climate X as non-capitalist non-planetary sovereignty. The authors of the present article agree that the depth and scale of destabilizations induced by climate change cannot be navigated justly from within the present social-political-economic system. We disagree, however, on which of the non-capitalist orientations (...) is better suited for generating viable alternatives to the worst dystopian futures. The article thus stages a debate to elucidate the theoretical and political divergence between Climate X and Climate Mao. (shrink)

One of Derek Parfit’s greatest legacies was the search for Theory X, a theory of population ethics that avoided all the implausible conclusions and paradoxes that have dogged the field since its inception: the Absurd Conclusion, the Repugnant Conclusion, the Non-Identity Problem, and the Mere Addition Paradox. In recent years, it has been argued that this search is doomed to failure and no satisfactory population axiology is possible. This chapter reviews Parfit’s life’s work in the field and argues that he (...) provided all the necessary components necessary for a Theory X. It then shows how these components can be combined together and applied to the global challenges Parfit argued matter most: preventing human extinction, managing catastrophic risks, and eradicating global poverty and suffering. Finally, it identifies a number of challenges facing his theory and suggests how these may be overcome. (shrink)