The herald and mail. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 1873-188?, 1874-09-04
Motive Power on the Farm.

The question is largely governed by
circumstances. Where there is much
work and large amount of power en-
ployed, the muleis the animal to use, and
he can be obtained cheaper, keptcheaper.
and is much longer-lived than either
the horse or the OK; besides, he is
tougher, less liable to injury and dis
ease. 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 profitable.
A horse team, if a good one, as ii
should be, will cost say $500. It will
last, if properly used, twenty years.
Divide the $500 by twenty and we have
SIS yearly for wear. The interest of
$500 is $12 per year. The keeping of
the team grain, $40 hay, $120; total,
1925 per year. Deducting $26 for the
manure, there will be left 5000 yearly
expense for horse team.
A mule can be raised or purchased at
less cost-shall we say one-third less ?
making the wear but SIS year (reck-
oning the service forty years, double
that of the horse), interest $14, expense
of feeding, say grain $50, other fodder
So, in all amounting &c $149 a year-a
difference annually of $50, or one-fourth.
And yet the 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 nice sum. Where a large
force is employed, the advantages of
using mule power will show in large
figures.
The question here comes up peril
nentIy whether horse or a mule team
should be employed where but one is
needed. There are those who take pride
in a mule team. even for the carriage,
and good active mules make a fine ap-
pearance. The mule can be obtained
active enough, docile, of a good dispe-
sition, affectionate even, and intelligent.
I see no reason why it should not be
more preferred. A good mule is more
reliable than the horse, endures more,
recuperates sooner from fatigue and ex-
haustion, is less liable to hurts, is sure
footed, good walker, patient, with
other desirable qualities. There are
those that, through bad lineage and
bad treatment, are vicious. Some of
them are "breachy," stubborn, diminu-
tive, with other undesirable qualities.
A bad mule and an inferior horse are
not wanted on farm.
There is prejudice against the mule
that is not entertained by those who
know the animal best. It is through
ignorance that this prejudice or repug-
nance exists, and it is at a loss to the
| 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.
NY remarks have been made on the
score of economy mostly. For show
and readiness, but principally from as
sociation, tie horse will be used by our
northern and eastern farmers who are
well-to-do, and need but a single team
to work their small farms or, if a
heavier force is required, the favorite
carriage team is not likely to be dis
pensed with or replaced by pair of
hybrids, even if rivals of the horses, or
superior to them IN size, appearance
and trustworthiness. The horse can
never by wholly displaced.
AS to the OK team, 1t can hardly be
said to be a competitor. Cheapness is
its recommendation. The yoke and
chain are its harness. It's keep COM
pares favorably with both the horse and
mule; and so its original cost. 1t is
handy, always in harness, always ready;
and, if good heavy pair, is fitted for
heavy work, such as blowing sod doing
the work here of three ordinary horses),
hauling heavy loads, etc. But its years
of labor are comparatively few. Its
carcass, however, can be turned off to
an advantage. But cattle, whether oxen,
bulls or cows, will never supplant the
mule or horse. The little advantage
they afford is exceptional. Coat7a-
try Gentleman.