362 Western Lave-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 haye 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 horges and mules for each 100 pounds 
live weight are practically equal. 
