Homestead mailing list

[Clansgian AT wmconnect.com]

> Ah, but only initially....almost no vet bills, hoof bills, and much 
> easier keep than a horse....

Of course I agree with you about the virtue of mules.  But the comparison 
between the keep of mules and horses stems most often from a non-subsistence 
comparison.

Mules as a rule have excellent hooves, hard and durable.  Belgian horses (as 
an example) have notoriously poor hooves, prone to split, flake, and get 
fungus infections.  If one employed a vet and farrier to attend to a mule or 
a 
large draft breed horse, no contest.  But big Duke has not seen a vet since 
we've 
had him and all his hoof grooming is done by us.  He does not wear shoes.  He 
has no unusual food requirements with the single exception that (because a 
2000 lb horse is NOT found in nature, no more than a mule is) there are times 
he 
must be supplemented with vegetable oil for the sake of his joints.

There IS a difference between keeping horses and mules with mules being 
easier.  But that difference diminishes with the distance from the 
agribusiness 
model and on a very subsistence operation  it nearly disappears altogether.   
</HTML>