362 Western Live-stock Management 



ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF MULES 



The principal advantages of mules as compared to horses 

 are as follows : They are somewhat more hardy and 

 possess more endurance than horses, at least under cer- 

 tain conditions ; they are surer footed and for this reason 

 are more in demand as pack animals in the mountains, 

 and for climbing up and down grades and embankments 

 as in all forms of railroad and contract work ; they have a 

 better sense of self-protection and are thus more satisfac- 

 tory for use with unskilled labor; they are somewhat 

 easier to feed in large bunches as on large plantations and 

 ranches and large contracting jobs, and they seldom over- 

 eat if given too much ; they are commonly considered 

 more tough and wiry than horses and more resistant to 

 diseases, and on this account will stand more hard work 

 and abuse than will horses. Since mules are entirely 

 for commercial purposes and since they have few dis- 

 qualifying defects, their market value is much more 

 stable than with horses. On the other hand, there are some 

 well-defined disadvantages to the raising of mules which 

 may be given as follows : they will not reproduce, hence 

 their total value must be measured in terms of work; 

 mules lack the style and attractiveness possessed by a 

 well-bred horse ; they do not have the gaits or speed for 

 fine driving or saddle purposes; and they do not have 

 the weight and muscle for very heavy pulling. Many 

 persons will argue that for the amount of work performed, 

 a mule will require less feed than a horse, but this has been 

 found by experiments to be a fallacy. In common 

 labor, the horse will accomplish just about as much for 

 each 100 pounds of weight as will a mule, and the feed 

 requirements for horses and mules for each 100 pounds 

 live weight are practically equal. 



