406 AMERICAN AGRICULTURE. 



and without much apparent suffering, while the male does 

 not get rid of it, frequently, till after an hour of considerable 

 pain. The effect of this difference is seen in the Joss of flesh 

 and strength in the male, to an extent far beyond that of the 

 female. The universal method of reducing refractory mules 

 in the northern Mexican possessions, is for the person to 

 grasp them firmly by the ears, while another whips them 

 severely on the fore-legs and belly. 



Estimated annual saving to tJie United Slates from the em- 

 ployment of mules in the place of horses. To sum up the 

 advantages of working m Jes over horses, we shall have as 

 advantage : 1. They are more easily, surely, and cheaply 

 raised. 2. They are maintained, after commencing work, 

 for much less than the cost of keeping horses. 3. They are 

 are not subject to many of the diseases of the horse, and to 

 others, only in a mitigated degree, and even these are easily 

 cured in the mule. 4. They attain a greater age, and their 

 average working years are probably twice that of the 

 horse. 



In 1840, there were reported to be 4,335,669 horses and 

 mules in the Union, no discrimination having been made 

 between them. Suppose the total number at the present 

 time is 4,650,000, and that of these 650,000 are mules, and 

 if we deduct or e-fourth supposed to be required fro the pur- 

 poses of breed, fancy horses, &c., we shall then have 

 3,000,000 horses, whose places may be equally well supplied 

 by the same number of mules. We have seen that Mr. Hood 

 of Maryland, estimates the expense of a working horse at 

 $44 per annum, (not an over estimate for the Atlantic 

 states,) while that of the mules is $22. The difference is 

 $22, which it is proper to reduce to meet the much lower 

 rate of keeping at the west. If we put the difference at $10, 

 we shall find the saving in the keep, shoeing, farriery, &c., 

 by substituting mules for the 3,000,000 horses that can be 

 dispensed with, will be $30,000,000 per annum. But this is 

 not all. The working age of the horse will not exceed an 

 average of eight years, while that of the mule is probably 

 over 16. To the difference of keep then, must be added the 

 annual waste of the capital invested in the animal. A mule 

 is more cheaply raised to working age than a horse, but 

 allowing them to cost equally, we shall have the horse 

 exhausting one-eighth or three-twenty-fourths of his capital 

 annually for his decay, when the mule is using up but one- 

 sixteenth ; and if we allow $48 as the first cost of both ani- 



