6 months

E is now 6 months old, which is both an eternity since she was born, and no time at all.

To her delight, she can now eat something resembling food. Her coordination is a bit lacking but she can steer most things roughly towards her mouth. Finger foods are a bit off yet, but she's enjoyed the handful of lumpier and slightly protein based goo that she's been offered. (rice, tomato and chicken so far her favourite). She is also allowed gluten now so has weetabix for breakfast instead of baby cereal. She approves greatly, but is still anxious to eat what we are. A chip went down a treat, although how much literally went down is another matter altogether.

Reaching and putting everything in her mouth is the aim of every second she is awake. Nothing is safe, other than the blessed fact that she is still not able to travel. Turning and reaching are trouble enough and her ability to pick things up is improving daily, terrifying in the light of the immediate transfer to mouth.

Movement at the moment consists of rolling and reaching. Much frustration is caused by an inability to stand or crawl. Sitting isn't quite there, she managed just a few unsupported seconds before she topples over.

She mostly sleeps like an angel all night, but is reluctant to nap by day and often gets tearfully grumpy and needs coaxed to sleep, only to awaken twenty minutes later.

Speech consists of much blethering, wow ow and igloo are common utterances. I'm not sure when or if she'll move onto the more conventional ba ba, ga ga.

She is beautiful and giggly and a delight to be around, I am so enjoying her babyhood. Bring on the next stage, which is due in about an hour...

Baby dictated weaning!

And weaning progresses...

I was pleased to note this article from the Guardian which pretty much confirms my understanding of it all. The most important thing for mothers to know, which seems to be missing from most literature, is that babies are individual and they make it very obvious when they need more than milk.

I personally believe baby led weaning, where at six months you offer finger food, is harmful both from the point of view of waiting until the baby can pick things up accurately and from a potential choking hazard.

I haven't tried it however and many others have successfully. Some babies need solids later than others, maybe if they don't demand it until after six months they can cope with chunks of finger foods, I don't know.

Miss E is not yet six months and seems to want to eat real food. She had some homemade veg soup which I had made with no nasties in and puréed a spot for her. Loved it, unlike any of the ready made jars I've offered.
Sigh. I guess it's down to my cooking and Plum Baby as back up (she liked their parsnip and pea) again.

But she seems to have a favourite. Lunchtime arrived and E was making it very clear she was hungry. Milk: no. Bean purée: absolutely no. Apple and pear: look mummy, I'm hungry, not peckish. Ok. Rusk in milk: oh yeah! That's the stuff! And I'll take my milk now too thanks.

Uh oh. She's not really meant to have rusks, and that makes 3/3 of them weaned on rusks. Oh dear. Bad mummy.

Weaning

I touched on weaning in my last post, now I shall expand.

Incidentally probably literally expanding as we speak, as I am making up for weight not gained during my pregnancy and gaining pounds almost daily. Can't stop eating, won't stop eating. Weight gained in pregnancy: 4lb. Weight gained since: another 17lb. Not good, but I just can't stop the hunger.

But that is me and I am fully weaned.

E has had a passionate interest in food since she was first able to focus her eyes. So she was delighted at the age of about 20 weeks to be offered some form of food. We started with baby banana porridge which bears no similarity to real porridge as it is made from baby rice not oats. But it tastes kinda like Angel Delight and unsurprisingly E was impressed. So we tried some fruit purée. E was unsure, but willing to eat. Spurred on by the memory of the virtuous home made purées that the twins had, I made some sweet potato purée, which was spat back at me. Plum Baby's parsnip, apple and pea purée went down a little better, but not much.

Now E turned her nose up at the baby cereal having tasted real food. I tried a couple of baby breakfast sachets and she was somewhat meh. So we tried yoghurt, which goes against the "no dairy products till 6 months" doctrine, but I'm believing Danone in a ludicrously idiotic manner because it suits me and the advice doesn't really make sense. So we go with "suitable from 4 months". Likewise with rusks which are heavily frowned upon but which certain twins had as first foods and which young E devours with enthusiasm. Mixed with formula into a paste I may add, not given as a finger food.

So I'm bad.

I did purchase some broccoli to make my speciality of green speckled potato however. Whether E takes it is to be seen, but that's tomorrow's tea. I also have some pear purée for the potential of pear and everything, which I had to resort to with baby R.

It's going fine. Could do better but I am acutely aware that she is advised not to start at all until six months, so she's fine until then if not getting a full and varied diet. I shall probably not try baby led weaning but we'll see. I have been known to change my mind on major parenting issues when confronted with actual facts.

Almost six months

I haven't been exactly keeping up with this.

There is a reason for this and that is the need to remove one's thoughts from baby world. In pregnancy it is hard to think of anything else; post pregnancy it is essential to be distracted.

And so we are now at over 5 months. E is a giggling, almost sitting/crawling/eating chubby bundle of joy. She smiles and laughs a lot and is in a fair representation of a routine.

She can now turn over onto her front (but not back) which she then finds immensely frustrating as she can't immediately crawl. This doesn't look like it's far away, so I am busy just now with making sure the house is baby friendly. It isn't, yet.

Eating: we are doing "tastes". So far we like yoghurt and rusks very much, both of which I am sure are no-no until 6 months, but then again all food is sort of no-no until then. Manufacturers of both say "suitable from weaning" so I'm going with it.

She also likes fruit and isn't wild about any veg she's tried. I have cooked one portion of sweet potato (which was rejected) and so far anything else veggie was bought ready puréed, because Plum Baby and the likes do baby food that looks like food.

I was so smug with the twins, they were weaned on all home cooked meals. But as they still want meals, I simply don't have the chance to make it for E. I guess I need to create at lunchtime. We'll see.

And that's about it. She's gorgeous and perfect and getting big!

Taste the difference

There is lots and lots written about babies' tastes and the profound changes a mother can inflict. Much learned from observing rats, incidentally.

If you were to believe all that is written, the following are true:

1) babies "learn" flavours from the amniotic fluid, therefore they will have a fondness towards that which the mother enjoys during pregnancy.

2) flavours must be introduced during the weaning process.

I beg to differ.

My twins, obviously, shared the same amniotic fluid. I ate a very limited diet during my pregnancy with them as I couldn't eat much. I drank gallons of milk and ate a lot of cheese. I ate pasta with tomato sauces, and a lot of fruit. I didn't like sweet things at all.

At weaning, I introduced new foods to both of them at the same time. If both babies didn't eat a food, I would amend it for both of them. For example, Rob wasn't keen on broccoli or other veg, so I combined them with pear, which he did like, and both babies got the mixture. They ate the same thing at each and every meal until they were able to pick out items they didn't like. For them, this was quite old.

Based on this they should have the exact same tastes.

Nuh uh.

R loves cheese and fruit. He doesn't like vegetables of virtually any description. He adores ham and has an extraordinarily sweet tooth. He doesn't like pasta much and he loathes tomatoes in any form other than ketchup.

O likes nothing more than salad. He will eat tomatoes and cucumber in favour of most things. He loves vegetables, he is particularly fond of mange tout. He would eat pasta with tomato sauce every night for tea. He isn't hugely keen on cheese and can take or leave milk. He can't stand ham and likes sweet things fine enough, but not as much as kids usually do.

Not the same at all. What they do share is more or less the tastes of their parents. R likes what daddy does, and O likes what mummy does. This is not because they have copied, they still don't eat with us for logistical reasons, and daddy has not been involved in weaning or very much feeding - I am in charge of food.

I can therefore conclude on the evidence of my limited study that the evidence from rats and conjecture is bull and that tastes are largely genetic.

Which does give a lot of credence to baby led weaning. The main argument against the premise of giving the baby a selection of foods is that they will not try all the foods but will go for the ones they know they like. If this can't be changed, then how brilliant to let them choose and decide from an early age.

I shall have to read up on it, the whole concept of baby-led weaning goes against the weaning principles of 5/6 years ago. I fear a wee mashed banana may figure before 6 months however which is the recommended (puree free) time for baby led weaning. I liked my purees!

We'll see, I've got more reading to do first.

Feeding

I've been a-reading about breastfeeding, in a much recommended book going by the name of "what to do when you're breastfeeding and what to do if you can't". The author (Clare Byam-Cook) is very good apparently and so I thought I'd see what she had to say.

By coincidence, the very same day I downloaded this book onto my precious kindle, Julia Boggio blogged that she'd visited Clare Byam-Cook for advice and was singing her praises. Spooky complete randomness, but hey, it could be a small sign of something. A sign-ette that I should be considering the whole breastfeeding thing.

Because of the whole breast-is-best and the lack of support for bottle feeding, I'm slightly evangelical about people who feel they mustn't ever give up on exclusive breastfeeding and are appalled by the idea of topping up. I'm quick to say "it's ok!!!" but that doesn't mean I don't think everyone should give the old breastfeeding a shot.

The book does make both palatable and interesting reading. I do intend to try it again, but even reading the book I am thinking "an hour to do a feed? an HOUR?" and worrying about comfort sucking and similar. Having not succeeded with breastfeeding at all last time, it's a whole new ball game.

I am motivated by how sick O was, I think he may have escaped a lot of that if he hadnt had formula from birth. I don't know that though. I was interested to read that a small baby that falls asleep quickly may not have the energy for a full breastfeed. O was like this and we had to get him faster teats so he could manage to drink a whole feed. While he may not have been so sick, he may not have got enough food and would have been even tireder. Who knows? He's very healthy now.

My reservations are thus:

If I have a caesarean birth, my milk may not be there at all again. The twins didn't even get colostrum and were getting sickly which is why I introduced formula in the first place. I do believe it is perfectly possible to give formula top ups until the milk comes in, but I'm not sure how that works if there's nothing at all coming out of the breast and baby does not want to latch on at all. This is what happened before, and I never went back, it was not suggested even when my milk came in and I queried it.

I am perturbed by the number of breastfeeding mums who do night feeds when their child is a considerable age. Over a year old and still having night feeds!! The twins had dropped all night feeds to the extent that waking again as we approached 4 months was noteworthy and indicative of a need to wean. I feel that I would definitely be topping up at bedtime if night feeds persisted.

Bottles are kind of easy to monitor, I worry that I'd spend a lot of time ineffectively breastfeeding. The book indicates that you quickly get the hang of whether the baby has had a full feed or is comfort sucking, and that if the baby is sated that they will sleep for 4 hours. Two hourly feeds are supposedly indicative of a poor latch or not enough milk being taken.

Babies who don't have bottles may have problems taking a bottle for water and later on for juice. They may also not like a dummy and - I may be making this up - might look to the breast for comfort instead.  Hmm. On that last point, I am reminded that I didn't offer the twins a bottle if it wasn't obvious that food was what was required, so I guess I wouldn't put them to the breast unless I genuinely thought them hungry.

Oh I don't know. I want to try, even if it's only for the first few days.

A small part of my brain is hoping baby comes the week before my caesarean is due and arrives naturally. Is that mad? Does that mean I'm really after a VBAC? The risks convince me no, so why the secret wish?

I'm even contemplating baby led weaning. Whether that holds out when baby is starving, I know not.

I'm going all soft. Kaz Cooke's Rough Guide to Babies and Toddlers arrived and while she's not at all of the you-must-obey-the-rules-of-naturalness she does make suggestions that make me think, well, it might be OK...

"Bad" parenting

I am going to be a bad mother to this baby. It cannot be helped for I have been tainted by experience.

I do not undertake to breastfeeding against all odds until my child is 14.
I fully intend to try; if - unlike my firstborn - they manage to latch on within 72 hours, then they shall have my milk. Combined with formula, pretty much from day one. Reasons for this are many:
1) 2 healthy boys who never had breastmilk
2) 1 allergy ridden, UTI prone, asthmatic mother who was exclusively breastfed (thats me!) unlike her exclusively formula fed sibling who has none of the above
3) I'm not that good at eating nutritionally great food and would have palpitations at the thought of depriving my child. I also need rather a lot of medication when I'm not pregnant. I like the security of measured nutrients, safe milk and confirmed amounts.

I shall be offering my child a dummy.
It is called a soother and it soothes. People who think they are a cop out are idiotic; if a child is offered a dummy when something else is desired, the dummy is swiftly returned. Besides, current wisdom decrees it protects against SIDS.

I shall be fighting to NOT have a natural birth.
I want a caesarean. The survival chances and health of my child are significantly better with a planned caesarean. I have good reason to think that my pelvis would be rubbish at the whole delivery thing (also, son 1 has a ginormous head) A failed VBAC (vaginal birth after caesarean) bodes very ominously for mother and child. An elective caesarean has the most positive statistics. I don't remotely feel that I will miss out on a natural birth, I had no trouble bonding with my caesarean born twins and I am prepared to fight for the right to have a section. I'm not incidentally too posh to push, I don't have issue with pain, I do have issue with endangering my unborn child.

I shall be destroying the planet.
It's disposables I'm afraid. No child of mine is having nappy rash because I chose a different type of nappy from the one that I know works beautifully.

I shall be weaning at 17 weeks.
I liked the puree stage, theres something immensely satisfying about making a tiny pot of goo and feeding it to your child, and experimenting with foods. Given that the period from 14-17 weeks was a trial of not being able to satisfy hungry boys, I embraced the arrival of 17 weeks and weaning. No way could we have waited till 6 months. There are better first weaning foods now, I weaned mine on (gluten free, sugar free) rusks (don't tell my health visitor!!) as they understandably balked at baby rice, which supposedly means "they are not ready". Bollocks, it means baby rice is rank.

My child might well go straight into their own room.
Unless we haven't moved of course, but if we have they will. The boys did, we had no choice as there was no room for four of us in one bedroom. A midwife made me cry by insinuating that I was going to be tantamount to murdering my babies by not having them in beside me. My obstetrician arrived as I sobbed, he tsked at the midwife's words, informing me all three of his own children had gone into their own rooms. It makes sense to me, to have them settle early rather than having the heartbreak of separation later.

Shoot me now. I'm uncaring and old fashioned. I believe in happy children, I don't need to complete myself as a woman or save the planet. I want my children to be secure, loved and well. I shall do all of the above and if this baby is as healthy and happy as my twins are, I shall be satisfied with my job of mothering.

For the record, Dr Spock talked a lot of sense as far as I can tell. I am going to read his book and see if he was as awful as I've been told...