THE ASS, THE MULE, AND THE COMPARATIVE LABOR OF WORKING ANIMALS.
THE ASS
Is a native of Arabia, Persia, and the central parts of Asia and Africa.
Like the horse, he goes in troops and displays great natural sagacity,
activity, and courage. Job says, "He scorneth the multitude of the city,
neither regardeth the crying of the driver." Like the horse, too, he has
from time immemorial been tamed, and become the faithful servant of man;
but unlike him, he is subject to few maladies, is hardy and enduring,
and subsists and even thrives on coarse and scanty forage. Thus Job says
of his natural haunts, "Whose house I have made the _wilderness_, and
the _barren land_ his dwellings; the range of the _mountains_ is his
pasture, and he searcheth after _every green thing_." Xenophon, in his
Anabasis, a thousand years later, says of one of the Asiatic deserts
through which he passed with the army of Cyrus, "that it was full of
wormwood; if any other kinds of shrubs or reeds grew there, they had all
an aromatic smell; but no trees appeared. Of wild creatures, the most
numerous are _wild asses_, which our horses sometimes chased; but the
wild asses exceeded them much in speed."
Varieties.
The different breeds of asses are supposed to be quite as numerous as
those of the horse. Four distinct races are mentioned in the earliest
scriptures. In modern times we find a similar diversity. There are two
kinds in Persia, the largest a slow, heavy brute, used only for burdens;
the other smaller and more spirited, and used for the saddle. In Egypt,
a considerable though less marked difference exists, those near the
Delta being inferior to those which are bred in Upper Egypt and Nubia.
In Spain, a difference in size and spirit prevails, greater even than in
Persia.
The _Zebra_ is nearly allied in size, shape, and character to the wild
ass, but his untameable ferocity has hitherto effectually bid defiance,
alike to the scourges and caresses, the frowns and the favors of man.
Arabia produces some of the most spirited and hardy asses, but their
size, like that of their horses, is too small for purposes of the
greatest utility. The Maltese Jack is by American breeders deemed the
choicest animal from which to propagate. He is evidently of Arabian
descent, and possesses all the good qualities of his ancestry, with
considerable additional size.
We have several varieties, all of which are imported, as there are no
natives of the Western Continent. The early importations were
principally made from the Azores, and Cape de Verd Islands, and were
mostly of an inferior character. A superior Maltese Jack was presented
to Gen. Washington, in 1787, by La Fayette, and is believed to be the
first ever sent to this country. Mr. Custis describes him as of moderate
size, clean-limbed, possessing great activity, the fire and ferocity of
a tiger, of a dark brown and nearly black, with white belly and muzzle,
and manageable only by one groom, nor then safely. He lived to a great
age. His mules were all active, spirited, and serviceable, and when from
stout mares, attained considerable size.
A Spanish Jack and Jennet were also presented to Washington about the
same time, by the King of Spain. The first is characterized by the same
authority, as a huge, ill-shapen animal, nearly 16 hands high, very
large head, clumsy limbs, and to all appearance little calculated for
active service; he was of a gray color, and not much valued for his
mules, which were unwieldy and dull. From the Maltese Jack and Spanish
Jennet, which approach the size of the large Spanish Jack, was bred a
valuable animal, _Compound_, which partook of all the good qualities of
the sire, with the weight of the dam. From him descended many of the
best mules of Mount Vernon.
Many other valuable importations followed these animals, and it is
believed we have for many years had as fine specimens of the ass as the
world affords.
Jennets, or she-asses, are used among us principally for breeding Jacks,
and of course are not numerous. They are sometimes, though seldom, bred
to the horse. It is difficult to induce the horse to notice them, and
the produce, which is called a _hinny_, is less hardy and useful than
the mule. The milk of the she-ass is lighter and more digestible than
that of any other animal, and in former times was in great request for
invalids.
The ass is occasionally used in the cart, or as a beast of burden. Such
as are employed for these purposes are generally of an inferior kind,
and are only used for the lightest work. They may sometimes be seen
among the fishmongers and small vegetable dealers about our city
markets, but little larger than a Newfoundland dog or Shetland pony,
trundling along a light cart with a wheelbarrow load. In ancient times
they have been, and in foreign countries--even at the present time, they
are extensively used. But the most enlightened of the moderns have
adopted the mule as the proper and almost exclusive substitute for the
ass; and it would show a still greater intelligence and economy, if it
much more extensively took the place of the horse.
THE MULE
Is the hybrid produced by the ass with the mare. How early this animal
was bred, is uncertain, but we know he was in high repute in the reign
of David, near 3,000 years ago, for he was rode by Absalom, the favorite
prince of Israel, on the field of battle. They have from time immemorial
been bred in various parts of the East, on the borders of the
Mediterranean, and throughout Spain, Portugal, and other countries, many
of them being of splendid appearance and of fine qualities. In these
countries, they are frequently used by the grandees and nobles, and
indeed by royalty itself; and however much they may be undervalued
elsewhere, when they are finely bred and trained, and richly
caparisoned, they exhibit a stateliness and bearing, that few of the
highest bred horses can match.
Breeding Mules in the United States,
Was commenced with much spirit in some of the New England states, soon
after the American revolution. The object was not to breed them for
their own use, but only as an article of commerce. They were at first
shipped exclusively to the West Indies; and afterwards to the South and
West, for employment in the various work of the plantation. Indifferent
animals, both as sires and dams, were used at first, as any thing which
bore the name of mule, then commanded a ready sale. The progeny were
necessarily inferior brutes, and viewed with almost universal derision;
and being considered the type of their race, a prejudice was excited
against them, which more than half a century has not been sufficient to
dispel.
Among a few thinking men at the North, they have been adopted and made
highly useful in the various duties of the farm. They have been largely
introduced at the South and West, but principally in the slave states,
where the management of the team devolves upon the ignorant and
heedless. It is there, and in other and hotter climates, that the
superior merits of the mule over the horse as a laboring animal, are
peculiarly manifest. In many instances they are indifferently fed,
hardly worked, and greatly neglected by their drivers; yet they sustain
themselves for years, in defiance of usage that would annihilate two
generations of horses. Their powers have been largely increased and
their merits improved, by the introduction of some of the best Maltese
and Spanish Jacks, and the use of large, blood mares. The propriety of
this course is seen in the value of the product; for while some of the
inferior are unsaleable at $50, others of the same age, and reared under
the same circumstances of keep and condition, could not be purchased for
$150.
The Breeding, Rearing, and Management of Mules
Is similar to that of colts. They will be found, equally with horses, to
repay generous keep and attention, by their increased and rapid growth.
But they should not be pampered by high feed, as it not only has a
tendency to produce disease, but to form habits of fastidiousness, which
materially lessens their economical feeding in after life. The diseases
to which mules are subjected, (which are always few, and if properly
managed will seldom or ever occur,) require a treatment like that of
horses.
_The breeding from mules_ has sometimes been questioned, but it has been
demonstrated in several instances. Neither the sexual development nor
propensities are wanting, but they are seldom indulged with effect. Mr.
Kilby, of Virginia, states in the Farmer's Register, that a mare mule
brought two colts from a young horse, which they closely resembled. The
first was a male, and died, apparently with staggers, which no treatment
could arrest, at six months old. The second was a female, 16 months
younger than the first, marked like the sire, being jet-black,
excepting a white foot and star in the forehead, and died at a year old,
after two days' illness, notwithstanding the utmost care was bestowed
upon it. Successful propagation of this hybrid, however, beyond the
first cross, seems to be incompatible with the fixed laws of nature.
With a view of encouraging the substitution of mules for a part of the
horses now employed in American husbandry, we give the following
testimony from experienced individuals, of great intelligence and
careful observation.
ADVANTAGES OF MULE OVER HORSE LABOR.
The official report of an agricultural committee in South Carolina, in
1824, says:--"The annual expense of keeping a horse is equal to his
value. A horse at four years old would not often bring more than his
cost. Two mules can be raised at less expense than one horse. The mule
is fit for service earlier, and if of sufficient size, will perform as
much labor as the horse; and if attended to when first put to work, his
gait and habits may be formed to suit the owner."
Mr. Pomeroy, who used them near Boston for 30 years, and to such an
extent as to have had more labor performed by them probably than any
person in New England, says:--"I am convinced the small breed of mules
will consume less in proportion to the labor they are capable of
performing than the larger race, but I shall confine myself to the
latter in my comparison, such as stand 141/2 to 16 hands, and are capable
of performing any work a horse is usually put to. From repeated
experiments, I have found that three mules of this description, which
were constantly at work, consumed about the same quantity of hay, and
only one-fourth the provender, which was given to two middling-size
coach-horses, only moderately worked. I am satisfied a large-sized mule
will not consume more than three-fifths to two-thirds the food to keep
him in good order, that will be necessary for a horse performing the
same labor. The expense of shoeing a mule the year round, does not
exceed one-third that of the horse, his hoofs being harder, more horny,
and so slow in their growth, that shoes require no removal, and hold on
till worn out; and the wear from the lightness of the animal is much
less.
Mules have been lost by feeding on cut straw and corn meal; in no other
instance have I known disease in them, except by inflammation of the
intestines, caused by the grossest exposure to cold and wet, and
excessive drinking cold water, after severe labor, and while in a high
state of perspiration. It is not improbable a farmer may work the same
team of mules for twenty years, without having a farrier's bill
presented to him.
In my experience of thirty years, I have never found but one mule
inclined to be vicious, and he might have been easily subdued while
young. I have always found them truer pullers and quicker travellers,
with a load, than horses. Their vision and hearing are much more
accurate. I have used them in my family carriage, in a gig, and under
the saddle; and have never known one to start or run from any object or
noise, a fault in the horse, that continually causes the maiming and
death of numerous human beings.
The mule is more steady in his draught, and less likely to waste his
strength than the horse, hence more suitable to work with oxen; and as
he walks faster, he will habituate them to a faster gait. In plowing
among crops, his feet being small and following each other so much more
in a line, he seldom treads down the ridges or crops. The facility of
instructing him to obey implicitly the voice of the driver is
astonishing. The best plowed tillage land I ever saw, I have had
performed by two mules tandem, without lines or driver. The mule is
capable of enduring labor in a temperature of heat that would be
destructive to a horse.
Although a large mule will consume something over one-half the food of a
horse, yet the saving in shoeing, farrying, and insurance against
diseases and accidents, will amount to at least one-half. In addition,
the owner may rely with tolerable certainty on the continuance of his
mule capital for thirty years; whereas the horse owner must, at the end
of fifteen years, look to his crops, his acres, or a bank for the
renewal of his. The longevity of a mule is so proverbial, that a
purchaser seldom inquires his age. Pliny mentions one 80 years old; and
Dr. Rees, two in England, that reached the age of 70. I saw one
performing his labor in a cane-mill in the West Indies, which the owner
assured me was 40 years old. I have now a mare-mule 25 years old, that I
have had in constant work for 21 years. She has often within a year
taken a ton weight in a wagon to Boston, five miles, and manifests no
diminution of her powers. A neighbor has one 28 years old, which he
would not exchange for any horse in the country. One in Maryland, 35
years old, is now as capable of labor as at any former period."
Mr. Hood of Maryland, in the American Farmer, estimates the annual
expense of a horse for 12 months, at $44, and that of a mule at $22,
just half price, and his working age at more than twice that of the
horse, and that too after 30 years' experience in keeping both.
A correspondent of the Baltimore Patriot, asserts that "Col. John E.
Howard had a pair of mules that worked 30 years, after which they were
sold to a carter in the city, and performed hard service for several
years longer. Many mules 25 years old, and now in this country, perform
well. Many have been at hard work for 12 or 15 years, and would now sell
for $100 each. They are not subject to the colt's ailments, the
glanders, heaves, yellow-water, and colic, like horses; and seldom are
afflicted with spavin, ringbones, or bots; and they will not founder."
General Shelby says, "he has known mules to travel 12 miles within the
hour in light harness, and has himself driven a pair 45 miles in six
hours, stopping an hour by the way." Four match mules have been sold in
this country for $1,000. They were of course superior animals, and made
elegant coach-horses. These animals were driven 80 miles in a day
without injury; and they proved a first-rate team for many years.
Mr. Ellicott, of the Patuxent Furnaces, asserts that, "out of about 100
mules at the works, we have not lost on an average one in two years.
Bleeding at the mouth will cure them of nearly every disease, and by
being turned out on pasture, they will recover from almost every
accident. I do not recollect we have ever had a wind-broken one. They
are scarcely ever defective in the hoof, and though kept shod, it is not
as important as with the horse. Their skin is tougher than that of the
horse, consequently they are not as much worried by flies, nor do they
suffer so much with the heat of summer."
To the foregoing testimony may be added that of the late Judge Hinckley
of Massachusetts; a shrewd and close observer through a long life of 84
years. He bred mules at an early day, and always kept a team of them for
his farm work, much preferring them to horses for this purpose, after an
experience of 50 years. He had a pair nearly 30 years old, which, with
light pasturage in summer, and with a moderate supply of hay with little
grain in winter, and no grooming, performed all the drudgery, though he
kept his stable full of horses besides. They outlived successive
generations of horses, and though the latter were often sick and out of
condition, the mules never were. One from his stock, 45 years old, was
sold for the same price paid for a lot of young mules, being at that
mature age perfectly able to perform his full share of labor.
For the caravans that pass over the almost inaccessible ranges which
form the continuation of the Rocky Mountains, and the extensive arid
plains that lie between and west of them, on the route from Santa Fe to
California, mules are the only beasts of burden used in these exhausting
and perilous adventures. Their value may be estimated from the
comparative prices of mules and horses; for while a good horse may be
bought for $10 to $20, a good mule is worth $50 to $75.
Dr. Lyman, who recently passed through those regions, informs us that
their caravan left Santa Fe with about 150 mules, 15 or 20 horses, all
beasts of burden, and two choice blood-horses, which were led and
treated with peculiar care. On the route, all the working-horses died
from exhaustion and suffering; the two bloods that had been so carefully
attended, but just survived; yet of the whole number of mules but 8 or
10 gave out. A mule 36 years of age was as strong, enduring, and
performed as hard labor, as any one in the caravan. When thirst
compelled them to resort for successive days to the saline waters, which
are the only ones furnished by those sterile plains, the horses were at
once severely, and not unfrequently fatally affected; while the mules,
though suffering greatly from the change, yet seldom were so much
injured as to require any remission of their labor.
The mules sent to the Mexican possessions from our western states,
Missouri, Tennessee, and Kentucky, are considered of much more value
than such as are bred from the native (usually wild) mares. The
difference probably arises, in part, from the Mexicans using jacks so
inferior to most of the stock animals used by the citizens of those
states.
Mare mules are estimated in those regions at one-third more than horse
mules. The reason assigned for this is, that after a day's journey of
excessive fatigue, there is a larger quantity of blood secreted in the
bladder, which the female, owing to her larger passage, voids at once,
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 loss of flesh and strength in the male to
an extent far beyond that of the female.
_The 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 the United States from the employment of
mules in the place of horses._--To sum up the advantages of working
mules over horses, we shall have as advantages: 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 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. If we deduct one-fourth, supposed to be required for the
purposes of breed, fancy-horses, &c., we shall 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 mule 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 sixteen. 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 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
animals, we shall find the horse wasting $6 annually for this item,
while the mule deteriorates but $3, making an additional item of
$9,000,000. This will give an aggregate of $39,000,000, as the annual
saving to the United States by substituting good mules for three-fourths
of the horses now used in this country. When will our farmers have the
good sense to make this change? It may be fairly answered, when they
shall prefer utility, interest, and a just taste, to a diseased fancy;
for though we admit the superiority in appearance of the race of horses
over mules, we deny that a bad horse looks better or even as well as a
good mule; and with the same keep and attention, a good mule will
outwork and outlook most horses of any breed.
The comparative Economy of Horse and Ox Labor.
This is a question which has been often discussed, and when with candor,
the conclusion has generally been in favor of ox-labor. The different
employments, the variety of situation, the season, and the kind of stock
reared on the farm, are all questions which should be fully considered
in arriving at their true comparative advantages. Most farmers would
find it for their interest to keep teams of each, where there is
employment for more than one; or if this be not the case, the preference
should be given to that which is best suited in all respects to their
particular position.
If work upon the road is required, a horse team will generally be best.
Their superiority will consist principally in their greater speed; for
even with a heavy load, they will be able to trot occasionally, and when
driven without it, they may increase their pace to nearly double the
natural gait of the ox. This will amount to a large annual saving in the
time of the driver when steadily employed. The same is true when
removing manures or crops on the farm to remote distances, over a smooth
surface, which admits of trotting with the empty wagon. Harrowing ought
always to be done with a quick team, as a violent stroke of the teeth
breaks the clods and pulverizes the earth much better than when slowly
dragged.
But we should assume in this comparison, that oxen shall not only be
well adapted to their work by their natural formation, like the
Hereford, the Devon, and others equally good, but also that they be well
trained, well managed, accustomed to quick movements, and as well fed
and looked after as horses. We shall then find their walk equal to a
quick horse team, and that in this case the horse will have no advantage
over the ox in harrowing. For plowing, the teams are on a par, as a good
ox team will do as much in a day in cool weather as horses.
_The situation of the farm_ may materially affect this estimate. In a
warm climate, horses, and more especially mules, would be more
serviceable than oxen, as they are capable of enduring much greater
heat with impunity. If the farm be small and convenient to market, the
labor may, in general, be best accomplished by oxen, as little
travelling will be required. So, too, if the land be stony or rough, the
plowing and harrowing will be more kindly and patiently done by oxen
than by spirited horses. Other considerations will suggest themselves as
affecting the comparative economy of this labor.
_The time of work_ is to be fully considered. If much and heavy work be
required in summer, as is often the case in plowing extensive wheat
farms, horses are to be preferred; yet if the ox-team be started at
early dawn, and worked briskly four or five hours, and then turned out
to rest with a supply of suitable food, they may again commence when the
extreme heat has abated, and accomplish a day's work that few horses
will exceed. During the season of muddy roads, the horse, with his
broad, compact foot, and longer leg, has a decided advantage over the
ox. If the ox draws by the yoke, (which on the whole is the best mode,)
he is liable to a sore neck when working in wet or snowy weather, and at
such times he is overmatched by his competitor.
_The kind of stock raised on the farm_ has an important bearing on this
question. Some farms are devoted to rearing horses, and some exclusively
to rearing cattle. These occasionally remain on hand after they are fit
for market, from the want of a profitable demand. They can then be
employed not only without injury, but in consequence of the thorough
training thus secured, with positive benefit to their future value.
Even if intended for the shambles, the well-developed ox may
advantageously be put to light work at three, after which it may be
gradually increased till he is six or eight, and during all this time he
will be improving. After doing an early spring's work, he may then be
turned on to good pasture, and if followed with proper stall-feeding, he
will in the latter part of the winter or spring yield a tender,
better-flavored, and more profitable carcass, than can be procured by
any other mode of fattening.
The first cost of oxen is less than that of horses, and they are at all
times cheaply reared on the coarser herbage of the farm. The expense of
working-gear, tackle, and shoeing, is much less than with horses. They
are subject to fewer diseases, and these are more within the reach of
ordinary medicines. The cost of food is also less, and while the horse
is depreciating, the ox is increasing in value till eight or nine years
old.
Accidents are less frequent with oxen, from their slower movements; and
when they occur, the ox may be turned out to fatten, and still be worth
as much for this purpose as for the yoke. A permanent injury to the
horse is perhaps a total loss of the beast, with a large farrier's bill
in addition, for which there is nothing to liquidate it but the hide.
The small farmer can make out a most serviceable team, by putting a
single horse before a yoke of cattle. If well trained, they will soon
accommodate themselves to each other's pace, and work as advantageously
together as an entire team of either class would do alone.
Bulls are frequently put to the draught, and when they have not other
services that fully test their powers, they cannot be better employed.
Heifers and cows are sometimes worked, but hitherto they have not been
used to any extent in this country. In the absence of other animals,
they might perform light work to advantage, but severe labor would stint
their growth or impair their milk beyond the benefit derived from it.
The _spayed heifer_ is an exception to the foregoing remark, and by many
is esteemed even more useful than an ox of equal weight.
We have no definite statements of the comparative money value of the
labor of oxen and horses. But in England repeated trials have been made,
and while some have discovered no advantage in the employment of oxen
over horses, others have proved them decidedly superior. One Anglesey
farmer found in an experience of three years, with 12 horses and 20
oxen, which accomplished an equal amount of work, that he had saved by
the latter, $1150.
The foregoing facts prove the subject to be one of sufficient
importance, to justify the closest investigation of every farmer to
determine for himself the comparative value of ox, horse, or mule labor.