3 ms·

would a zoologist ever recommend baby mammals receive any food other than their mother's milk to facilitate optimal development? Why, yes. I'm not a zoologist,

would a zoologist ever recommend baby mammals receive any food other than their mother's milk to facilitate optimal development? Why, yes. I'm not a zoologist, but I know giving a replacement milk is the best solution when the mother either is absent for whatever reason, cannot produce milk, or cannot produce enough quality milk. This is why we have milk for infant cats and dogs, actually. Otherwise, the animal would die. There is a similar nutrition for birds (as they don't produce milk) and it is common for folks to buy pigmy goats as an infant and bottle feed them. Why do humans think they're any different? We don't. Replacement breast milk saved lives, and these sorts of issues were the original use of infant formula. When applied to current society, it still saves lives and helps to keep folks from financial ruin because some countries (like the US) don't really give mothers time off work to properly breast feed, and it is usually difficult to pump milk at work. At some point while pumping, people usually have to supplement formula as well. As a side note, I was one of the babies that would have died without a wet nurse, as my mother had gall bladder surgery before I was 6 weeks old (fairly major surgery in '78) and could not breast feed.

alkonaut 9y ago
> giving a replacement milk is the best solution That's the reason maternity wards have fridges full of donated milk so that at least during the first days/weeks/months of life, especially for those born prematurely, the replacement milk is actual breast milk. The point about maternity leave is a good one. Obviously countries should have a maternity leave that is longer than the breastfeeding period. That the US doesn't is pretty terrible imho. (This isn't an employer expense in all those countries that have it, it's usually a tax funded system)
- Broken_Hippo 9y ago
  And that's a great program, mostly because of the initial health benefits. I do understand breast milk is the best first option, even if you are basically running a modern wet nurse program. But it doesn't seem to replace the need for formula after the initial time frame which is many months afterwards.
  - scalesolved 9y ago
    Assuming the mother has the time and has no circumstances such as medication or illness that prevents her from breastfeeding why is there a need for formula after the initial time frame?
    - Broken_Hippo 9y ago
      Because babies breast feed for months, ideally anyway. The hospital breast milk is really important for premature babies (cuts down hospital stays), and is really healthy for newborns regardless. But babies ideally breast feed for at least 6 months (The pediatric society might say much longer than that, easily googleable and telling of my own laziness on searching). Assuming there are absolutely no medical or circumstantial reasons to use formula (such as the complication with work in my original reply and public acceptance of breast feeding in public), there aren't many reasons. You know, except being able to be away from your child for any length of time in the first months. But this simply isn't reality, nor is breast milk always enough (my mother simply couldn't produce enough milk for my little brother to stay healthy, and his asthma was already a concern). Some women die in childbirth as well. Not to mention psychological concerns (I refuse to have a child. Pregnancy and breast feeding are the stuff of nightmares for me). We need the option there just to make sure all babies have nutrition. And the more folks push, the more acceptable it is to shame non-breastfeeding mothers. That really freaking bothers me.
      - scalesolved 9y ago
        I'd say the conditions you listed are wholly acceptable, lack of milk, psychological concerns etc. I fully support women who choose to formula feed. I've found though that most people push formula more than anything. My partner and I have just had our first baby, she's fully breastfed and barely a day goes by where people ask whether we're supplementing with formula as breast milk does not contain the right or enough nutrition for them. I side with breast milk first and and foremost if it's a viable option as I'm less inclined to believe large formula manufactures such as Nestle really have the best of interests.
sbenitoj 9y ago
You mis-interpreted my statement -- I never said there weren't extenuating circumstances, or that there NO place for formula, in fact I believe it's a necessary evil for many people given their life situation, but that doesn't make it comparable to breastmilk from a healthy, well-fed mother if it's available.

alkonaut 9y ago

> giving a replacement milk is the best solution That's the reason maternity wards have fridges full of donated milk so that at least during the first days/weeks/months of life, especially for those born prematurely, the replacement milk is actual breast milk. The point about maternity leave is a good one. Obviously countries should have a maternity leave that is longer than the breastfeeding period. That the US doesn't is pretty terrible imho. (This isn't an employer expense in all those countries that have it, it's usually a tax funded system)

Broken_Hippo 9y ago
And that's a great program, mostly because of the initial health benefits. I do understand breast milk is the best first option, even if you are basically running a modern wet nurse program. But it doesn't seem to replace the need for formula after the initial time frame which is many months afterwards.
- scalesolved 9y ago
  Assuming the mother has the time and has no circumstances such as medication or illness that prevents her from breastfeeding why is there a need for formula after the initial time frame?
  - Broken_Hippo 9y ago
    Because babies breast feed for months, ideally anyway. The hospital breast milk is really important for premature babies (cuts down hospital stays), and is really healthy for newborns regardless. But babies ideally breast feed for at least 6 months (The pediatric society might say much longer than that, easily googleable and telling of my own laziness on searching). Assuming there are absolutely no medical or circumstantial reasons to use formula (such as the complication with work in my original reply and public acceptance of breast feeding in public), there aren't many reasons. You know, except being able to be away from your child for any length of time in the first months. But this simply isn't reality, nor is breast milk always enough (my mother simply couldn't produce enough milk for my little brother to stay healthy, and his asthma was already a concern). Some women die in childbirth as well. Not to mention psychological concerns (I refuse to have a child. Pregnancy and breast feeding are the stuff of nightmares for me). We need the option there just to make sure all babies have nutrition. And the more folks push, the more acceptable it is to shame non-breastfeeding mothers. That really freaking bothers me.
    - scalesolved 9y ago
      I'd say the conditions you listed are wholly acceptable, lack of milk, psychological concerns etc. I fully support women who choose to formula feed. I've found though that most people push formula more than anything. My partner and I have just had our first baby, she's fully breastfed and barely a day goes by where people ask whether we're supplementing with formula as breast milk does not contain the right or enough nutrition for them. I side with breast milk first and and foremost if it's a viable option as I'm less inclined to believe large formula manufactures such as Nestle really have the best of interests.

sbenitoj 9y ago

You mis-interpreted my statement -- I never said there weren't extenuating circumstances, or that there NO place for formula, in fact I believe it's a necessary evil for many people given their life situation, but that doesn't make it comparable to breastmilk from a healthy, well-fed mother if it's available.