Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1876-05-04
L HE HERALD.
{ he farmers furrom,
Mule Defence.



better suited, not only in the south
err climate, but here in the north
than horses. They work freer, with less
trouble, are more hardy, stand the
heat better and are not 40 easily af-
fected by the neglect and cruelty of
hired hands and others who u 9
them. On the score Of economy,
also, they deserve all the favor that
has been awarded them in the south
and vastly more than they common
ly receive a. the north. The mule
does not eat more than one-half to
three-fourths as the horse, which,
when feed is high, is an item of inn
portance. The mule is q much health
Ter animal than the horse; as to the
capabilities for service, not only is
be equivalent to the horsepower,
but be will last more thar double
the number of years that his more
pretentious congener will. The aver
age period of service of the horse Is
about ten years, beginning at the
age of three, and although some
horses last considerably longer than
this, there are quite as many that
fail before their thirteenth year,
The average period of service Of the
mule is about twenty-five. They
sometimes begin to fail ct twenty
ard in other cases remain as good as
ever until thirty five. One mule
then, in his lifetime, will do the or
binary work of moro than two
horses, at an expense each year OF
from thirty.five to fifty per cent. less
in keeping. Another important con.
siderGtion is, that the mule thrives
best on dry feed and grain unground.
The horses feed should be all chopped
or ground, his diet should be light
and moist and, corn is unquestiona.
bly, injurious to him, especially wher
he has To bite it from the cob. Just
the reverse of this with the mule
Corn which is his favorite food, never
appears to have any i'll effects upon
his system and nothing is better
adapted to his needs than dry hay
if it be good and sweet. This is ar
item of some consequence, when the
saving of the miller's toll-never less
than one-eighth- and the time and
labor of going to mill are all reckon.
ed up. 1t makes the aggregate diff
ference between the horse keepin 6
and the mule hardly ever less thar
one half. The cost of white ing d
mule in 1860 was computed to be
ten dollars less than that of tht
borse In 1866 this must certainly
be increased TO not less than fifteer
dollars. In the former year there
were not less than baf million o.
mules in the United States, whose
employ ment instead of horses, thus
formed an aggregate saving to the
country of five millions of dollars in
the cost of wintering alone. This
greatly superior economy attending
the use Of the mule, taken il consid
Grafton with his readiness to labor
his comparative freedom from dis
ease, and his more than double long.
evity, make the calculation largely
10 his favor as trusty and valuable
servant. There is more certainty ir
breeding mules than horses. The
mare is more likely to become will
foal by a jack than by horse, anc
the same proportion OF accidents dc
not occur in her foaling. Every
breeder knows how much less trouble
it is to raise a mule colt than horse
A very erroneous idea among farm
ers is they think any scrub of mare
will do to raise q mule. If they
would raise mules from the bes
mares they would be happily disap
pointed, one pair would BIO worth
two pair bred from old and broker
down mares. A very unjust preju
dice against the mule exists In tht
minds of many, having it's origin il
the incorrect notion that the mingline
of the blood of the horse and the ass i.
prohibited in the Bible, in supper
of which view they quote the injunc
ton to the Jews. Thou shalt no
lot thy cattle gender with q divers,
kind" This precept is but writer
Interpretation of one of natures fun
damentsl laws, yet it is by no means
clear that these two animals are o
| types so dissimilar as to como within
it's limitation. Tho gendering 0
totally diverse kinds, wherever at
tempted, has either been wholly IN
productive or hss resulted in som,
monstresity for progeny. Such il
not the case with the mule, though
himself incapable of breeding, ant
| this circumstance alone is a great
argument in favor of his Legitimacy
in the animal creation. Judged b,
the test of usefulness and adaptable
ty the mule may claim high ranl
| among the domestic animals.
That the Divine Introduction wai
not construed by tho Jews in thil
restricted sense appears plainly from
several references to the mule
throughout the historical books o
the old Testament. For instance
when David, in the zenith OF hi,
power and glory, as king OF Israel
| commanded certain of his attendant
"to take with you the servants O
your Lord and cause Solomon, my
SOB, to ride upon (mine own mule)
and bring him down to Gihon," it i,
| evident that he intended compli
ment and honor to the royal heir
And Soloman, in the height of his al.
most unexampled prosperity ant
| glory, received horses and mules o.
tribute. among such costly article.
as vessels of silver. vessels OF gold
garments. spices. &c. 1t seems little
likely that the inspired record would
have such facts to recount bad The
ancient people of God understood
that the very existence of the mula
was due to the violation of an ex
press command of the Divine Law
Giver. 1t is none of our business tc
enter upon a thorough discussion o.
what was really intended by thi'
prohibition. Our object is SIMPLE tC
exhonerate and defend the much
abused and unjustly despised mules
l. L