Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1874-08-06
Motive Power on the Farm.

THIS question is largely governed by
circumstances. Where there is much
work and large amount of power en-
ployed the mule is the animal to use, as
he can be obtained cheaper, kept cheap
er. and is much longer lived than either
the horse or the OK: beside, he is tougher,
less liable to injury and disease, and has
more work in him where endurance is
the test. He is therefore the animal for
the farm where economy is considered.
Hence, where farming is largely carried
on the mule is not only the animal
wanted, but he is by far the most profit
able.
A horse team, if a good one, as it
should be- will cost, say $500. 1t will
last if properly used, say twenty Yeas.
Divide the $500 by twenty and we have
SO yearly for wear. The interest of
$500 is $31 per year The keeping of
team, grain SO, hay $120; total, 1926 per
year Deducting $26 for the manure,
there will be left $500 yearly expense
for horse team.
A mule can be raised or purchased at
a less cost-shall we say one-third less?
making the wear but So a year (reckon-
ing the service forty years, double that
of the horse), interest $14, expense of
feeding, say, grain $50, other fodder $50,
in all amounting to $149 a year-a diff
ference annually Of $50, or OnefOurth.
And yet this same amount of work, if
not more, is performed. This for one
team, which in the course of a mans
average lifetime on the farm will amount
to a nice sum. Where a large force is
employed, the advantages of using mule
power will show in large figures.
The question here comes up pertinent
ly whether a horse or amule team should
be employed where but one is needed.
There are those who take pride in Il
mule team, even for the carriage, and
good, active mules make fine appear
ance. The mule can be obtained active
enough, dOcile, of good disposition,
attectiOnate even, and intelligent. | see
no reason why it should not be more
preferred. A good mule is more reliable
than the horse, endureS more, reCuper
ates sooner from fatigue and exhaustion
is less liable to hurts, is Sure-foOted, a
good walker, patient, with other desira
bic qualities. There are those tnat
through bad lineage and bad treatment
are vicious. Some of them are
breachy," stubborn, diminutive, with
other undesirable qualities. A bad mule
and an inferior horse are not wanted on
a farm.
There is a prejudice against the mule
that is not entertained by those who
know the animal best. 1t is through ig-
norance that this prejudice OF Tepug-
farmer. What is clear is, that we need
more of these hybrids to do our work
The South and West are already sup
piled, and the North and East will find
it for their interest to use this animal.
My remarks have been made on the score
of economy mostly For show and read
mess, but principally from association,
the horse will be used by our Northern
and Eastern farmers who are we'll to do
and need but single team to work their
small farms; or if a heavier force is re-
quiced, the favorite carriage team is not
likely to be dispensed with or replaced
by pair of hybrids, even if rivals of the
horses or superior to them in size, ap-
pearance and trustwOrthiness The horse
can never be wholly displaced.
AS to the OK team, it can hardly be
said to be competitor. Cheapness is
its recommendation. The yoke and
chain are its harness. Its keep COM
pares fayorably with both the horse and
mule; and so its original cost. 1t is
handy, always in harness, always ready;
and, if a good heavy pair, is fitted for
heavy work, such as blowing sod doing
the work here of three ordinary horsesJ,
hauling heavy loads, etc. But it's years
of labor are comparatively few It's car
cass, however, can be turned off to adj
vantage. Bat cattle, whether oxen, bulls
or cows, will never sUpplant the mule or
the horse. The little advantage they
afford is eXceptional.-C0r Country Gen.
t!ellGh.