Rensselaer Union, Volume 6, Number 45, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 30 July 1874 — Motive Power on the Farm. [ARTICLE]

Motive Power on the Farm.

Tnis question is largely governed by circumstances. Where there is much work and a large amount of power’employed the mule is the animal to use, as he can-be obtained cheaper, kept cheaper, and is much longer lived than either the horse or the ox; beside, lie 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. Henrie, where farming is largely carried on the mule is not only the animal wanted, but he is by far the most profitable. ' ,1 - A horse team, if a good one, as it should be, will cost, say S3OO. It will last if properly used, say twenty yea;s. Divide the S3OO by twenty and we have sls yearly for wear. The interest of $300" is s2l per year. The keeping of team, grain S7O, hay $120; total, $226 per year. Deducting $26 for the manure, there will be left S2OO yearly expense for’a horse team.' A fhule cap be raised or purchased at a less cost —shall we say one-third less? —making the'wear but ssayear(reckoning the service forty years, double that of the horse), interest sl4; expense of feeding, say, grain SSO, other fodder SBO, in all amounting to $149 a year—'a difference annually of SSO, 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 man’s average lifetime on the farm Will amount to a nice sum. Where a lar|je force is employed, the advantages of using mule power w ill show in large figures. , The question here comes up pertinently whether a 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 appearance; The mule can be obtained active enough, docile, of a good disposition, aflectionate even, and intelligent. I see no reason why it should not be more preferred.. A good jnuie is more reliable than the horse, endures* more, recuperates sooner from fatigue and exhaustion, is less liable to hurts, is sure-footed, a good walker, patient, with other desira ble qualities. There are those tuat, through bad lineage and bad treatment, arc vicious. Some of thorn are “ bj-eachy,” . 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 tnosc who know the animal best. It is througn ignorance that this prejudice or repugnance 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 VVest are already supplied, 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 readiness, but principally from ‘ association, the 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 dispensed with or replaced by a pair of hybrids, even if rivals of the horses or superior to them in size, appearance and trustworthiness. The horse can never be wholly displaced. As to the ox team, it can haraly be said to be a competitor. THieapness is its recommendation. The yoke and chain are its harness. Its keep compares favorably with both the horse and mule; and so its original cost. It is handy, always in harness, always ready; and, if a good heavy pair, is fitted for heavy work, such as plowing 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 advantage. But cattle, whether oxen, bulls or cows, will never supplant the mule or the horse. The little advantage they afford is exceptional.— Car. Country Gentleman.