Pages

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Teething biscuits

I'm still trying to avoid wheat for the baby (though I have given him a few saltines now and again, without incident), but sometimes, there's nothing so handy as a cracker. I've been experimenting, and I've developed a cracker recipe that works for me. I used potato starch, but you could also use arrowroot powder or any other alternate flour. If you try it with something different, I'd like to hear about it!

Teething Biscuits

1/4 cup plain yogurt
1 egg yolk
1 tablespoon olive (or other) oil
about 3/4 cup potato starch
1/8 teaspoon baking soda
Herbs or cheese

Mix the liquid ingredients first. Add the baking soda to 1/2 cup of potato starch and mix it into the wet ingredients. Then add more starch, a tablespoon or so at a time, until it becomes difficult to stir. Be careful -- if you add too much, it will become impossible to stir! Add in some salt, herbs, or whatever your baby likes. Next time I think I'll try some rosemary.

Spread the batter out thinly on a Silpat or sheet of parchment paper placed on a cookie sheet. Sprinkle with grated cheese, if desired. Bake at 350 degrees for 15-20 minutes, or until dry. Cut into crackers with a knife or pizza cutter -- you may need to break them up with your hands after scoring them with the knife. Store in an airtight container, if you want an actual edible cracker. If you leave them on the counter, you'll get a teething biscuit that will stand up to hours of chewing, without much cracker ending up inside the baby. ;) They get stale really easily. I've been keeping one in my pocket when we go out, so the baby can have something to chew on and taste without making a mess.

Egg yolk is rich in iron and not allergenic like egg whites are. For even more iron, add a bit of blackstrap molasses to the wet ingredients.

Sunday, March 13, 2011

A bit about dirt

I'm getting so excited about the opportunity to grow my own garden (provided the house deal doesn't fall through at the last minute!). However, I'm also becoming aware that I won't get much in the ground this year, and I'm not likely to get good results from what I do plant. Why not? Well, the soil isn't ready. It's never been gardened in, to the best of my knowledge, and it's never been wild either. It's just the stuff that was dug up when the house was built, and has had patchy grass growing on it for 60 years.

Plain dirt, where nothing's ever been grown, is just a random collection of minerals. It can be clay, like mine, or silt, or sand. Clay is very dense, holds water, turns into brick when it dries out, and is generally unmanageable. I thought the way to fix it was to add sand -- but my reading tells me that the cure for clay and sand is the same: add organic matter.

That's also the cure to nutrient-deficient soil, either because it hasn't been grown in, or because it's been used up by a lot of past gardening. Whatever your problem, working in organic matter is the cure. It aerates the soil and provides nutrients. Organic matter might include dead leaves, kitchen scraps, animal waste, seaweed, and bones, all properly prepared. These provide the nutrients that plants need: nitrogen, potassium, phosphorus, and trace minerals. Plants use these minerals to produce all the vitamins and amino acids they need, and which we so gratefully obtain from them.

In the wild -- say, a forest floor, or an open meadow -- the soil cares for itself. Plants shed leaves and branches. Earthworms aerate the soil. Animals poop on the soil, and later die on it. Microbe activity is high. Everything dropped on the ground eventually decays, adding its nutrients to the soil. It's the CIRCLE of LIFE! (Sorry, couldn't help myself!) If you look at a cross-section of wild soil, you'd see organic matter, like leafmold, on top, slowly decaying into humus underneath. After some nice topsoil of mixed humus and dirt, there is the original packed clay, silt, or sand. Building topsoil is a very slow process in the wild -- it could take as long as five hundred years to make an inch! (1)

With careful stewardship, we humans can build topsoil much faster. On rocky islands near Ireland and Scotland, topsoil has to be built completely from scratch. Hardworking farmers spread seaweed, which is an incredibly rich fertilizer, over their fields from year to year until they build up sufficient soil over the rocky ground. In other places, manure and compost are used. Rotating cropland and pasture can build up topsoil quickly -- as fast as an inch per year!

There have been times in man's history where we haven't had the knowledge to produce good topsoil, and land would be depleted in a few years. Yields would be good the first year, middling the second, and completely insufficient the third. Nitrogen, in particular, gets depleted very fast and is hard to restore the soil. Then farmers discovered that legumes, like beans or clover, improved the soil. This is because they harbor bacteria which "fix" nitrogen out of the air and into the soil to make it available to plants. It became common to rotate crops -- one field of wheat, one of legumes, and perhaps one fallow (wild). Plowing the stubble under also helped build topsoil, as the stubble rotted underground.

This method is highly preferable to the one in use by some South American farmers, who use the soil until it is depleted and then burn a few more acres of the Amazon rainforest, which has extremely rich soil. It's also preferable to the modern industrial farming method, which depletes the soil freely and then fertilizes with nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium chemical fertilizers. Yes, those three vital nutrients are being returned to the soil, but not all of the necessary trace minerals are. Produce you find in the store may have as much as 75% less of the various trace minerals. Also, these chemical fertilizers pollute the rest of the environment in runoff, causing poisonous algae blooms in the ocean, contamination of the water table, release of methane and nitrous oxide into the atmosphere, and numerous other problems. I've just been reading the Wikipedia article on fertilizer and am quite shocked at the amount of documented harm that chemical fertilizers do!

In nature, animals and plants complement each other, each trading off what the other needs. Animals inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide, while plants need carbon dioxide and emit oxygen. Plants use nitrogen to make amino acids; animals use amino acids to make protein, but eventually return the nitrogen to the air and soil. Bringing chemicals into the picture is a shortcut, but one that doesn't lend itself to a perfect, self-sustaining, closed system like nature does.

I used to think "organic" produce was just a label. After all, aren't all living things "organic"? The term organic simply means fertilized with organic matter (plant waste, seaweed, bone meal) rather than non-organic matter (chemical fertilizers). Organic produce is more sustainable than conventional produce: it doesn't require factories or petrochemicals, and it doesn't pollute the environment. It also results in a crop that is richer in trace minerals than conventional produce. And that's without even considering potential pesticide contamination.

Well, what's the catch? Some people believe it would not be possible to feed the world with only organic methods. We have a much larger population than we had 100 years ago, before the advent of chemical fertilizers. This growth has been made possible in part by an easy, cheap food supply. Unfortunately, we cannot keep it up indefinitely -- not only is the soil becoming more and more depleted, but our sources for chemical fertilizers (petroleum and mineral mines) are not renewable. We're going to have to find new ways to grow food that are sustainable.

On the other hand, some believe it is possible to feed the world organically. Definitely we wouldn't be able to have feedlot beef anymore -- so a burger a day would no longer be possible. A book of mine on Roman cookery, written in 1936, predicts that we will "soon" no longer be eating so much beef: "Today lives a race of beef eaters. Our beef diet, no doubt, is bound to change somewhat. Already the world's grazing grounds are steadily diminishing ... With the increasing shortage of beef, with the increasing facilities for raising chicken and pork, a reversion to [ancient Roman] methods of cookery and diet is not only probable, but actually seems inevitable." (2) The invention of the feedlot has staved off this eventuality, but if we weaned ourselves off this food-raising method, we'd be back to eating chicken, pork, mutton, and goat like ancient Europeans often did.

We would also have to spread farming education to areas where food is limited. Cry, the Beloved Country describes the poverty of South African farmers, not because the land is poor, but because the farmers don't know how to work it. They deal with erosion and drought due to poor planning. Those South American farmers who are burning off the Amazon need to be stopped, not with fiercer laws protecting the rain forest (which there already are), but education about how to preserve the soil they already have. Currently, the world relies heavily on a few food sources, while often not having sources close to home. Thus, when civil unrest breaks out (as it so often does, especially in Africa), the people have no way to get food. They are relying on a complicated infrastructure to feed them, and when the infrastructure fails them, they have no recourse. A family cow, a garden plot, a couple of acres of farmland would be much harder to deprive them of. (This is why I love charities like Heifer International.)

So, can organic feed the world? I don't know. I do know, however, that I feel a lot better about nourishing my own soil, growing my own crops, and eating my own handiwork than I do about supporting conventional agriculture. That's one big reason why I want to garden.

(1) Wikipedia, "Topsoil"
(2) Apicius, Cookery and Dining in Imperial Rome, edited and translated by Joseph Dommers Vehling

Saturday, March 12, 2011

Am I a full-time mom?

Yesterday I read this blog post, in which The Feminist Breeder objects to the term "full-time mom." Her point is that "full-time mom," when used to refer to a stay-at-home mom, suggests that working moms are "part-time moms." Obviously, if you're a mother, you're a mother all the time. You don't leave the mother part of yourself at home, and if your kids need you while you're at work, you have to leave work and go take care of your kids. Not to mention that your income goes to support your family. We don't call working dads "part-time dads" -- I think people more readily acknowledge that dads are doing part of their job as a father when they're at the workplace than they do for mothers. But if a mother needs to work to feed her family, working is mothering. It's caring for her family.

And I agree with all that. Definitely, if people find the term offensive, I won't use it.

But still. The discussion on the post annoyed me.

First off, what am I supposed to call myself, then? Stay-at-home mom is the average term, which is okay I guess, but I don't care for it. I don't stay home all day. I stay with my son all day, and we go places. Homemaker and housewife and "domestic engineer" are all worse. Because I don't stay home to take care of the house, I stay home to take care of my child. I wouldn't stay home just for the house -- when I was working full-time, I still had to take care of the housework. And I don't think the fact that my husband earns money for his job and I don't earn money for mine automatically exempts him from the housework and makes it my job. We both work on housework whenever we have time after we're done with our other jobs.

If someone asks what my occupation is, my occupation is mothering and I do it full-time. If someone asks what my state in life is, it's mother, wife, etc. with no addenda. Because you can't be in a state in life, or in a relationship to another person, part-time.

The whole debate between stay-at-home mothers and mothers who work outside the home is called "the mommy wars." It's fueled a lot by news articles and such, but I do think it's a real conflict. Mothers want so badly to believe they are making the right choices for their family, and they feel very threatened when people imply they aren't. So when someone says that a working mom isn't a "full-time mom," she gets upset, and conversely, when someone says a full-time mom isn't a "working mom," she rightly might argue, "I work just as much as the next mom, I just don't get paid!"

The general answer to the "mommy wars" that the blogosphere has come up with is, "We're all good moms. We're all making the best choice for our family. No one's choice is any better than anyone else's."

On the one hand, yes, mothers make the best choice for their family, or at least they try. If it's a choice between staying home and food on the table, what mother would insist on staying home? Mothers who work, believe that they are doing what is right for their families. Mothers who stay home, do it for their families. Most mothers are pretty darn selfless and wouldn't do what they do if they thought it was hurting their families.

On the other hand, is it necessarily true that no choice is objectively better than the other choices? Surely someone's got to be right -- either children flourish best with non-parent caregivers around, or they flourish best in the near-exclusive care of their parents. (I'm speaking mainly of children too young for school; at school age there's a separate question of homeschooling vs. outside school, which goes beyond the question of whether mom is at home or not.)

I've made no secret of my opinion that children need their parents around if they can get them. Children form very strong attachments to their caregivers, and having that caregiver be a parent or close relative means that those bonds won't be damaged or severed when the parents switch daycares or the nanny quits. Love is something that is given so much more easily by family than by paid labor, but it's something that kids need -- and not just outside of work hours. It's not like a two-year-old can save his crisis to talk to Mom about after work -- either she's there when he needs her, or he will have to be comforted by someone else.

Sometimes having at least one parent around at all times just isn't an option. And that's okay -- the parents will have to pick trusted caregivers and try to cram all the love and attention they can into the hours they have with their child. But it still makes me sad, reading about moms who drive like the wind to get home with their baby by six, play with him for an hour or two, and then put him to bed. I can't imagine this can be what any mom wants. Worse still is the situation of, say, military moms who are deployed far away from their children for months. A very young child might not even remember his mom. It breaks my heart.

Back to the blog post, and the mini-mommy-war in the comments. Someone said, "It bothers me when employed mamas treat SAHMs like they do everything we do and more." I agreed with that statement -- and got blasted for it by the blog author. The argument that working moms are full-time moms too ends up arguing something along the lines of, "Well, I am a full-time mom too, PLUS I work for eight hours a day." Does that mean that mother has 32 hours in a day? Perhaps her 24 hours are more packed with activity, like packing lunches, running errands, cleaning the house, and so forth. But she can't give her kids more than 24 hours of her time. And from the kids' perspective, they're only getting 16 hours a day with their mom, a big chunk of which is spent sleeping. With all that lunch-packing and errand-running, they don't get a lot of time to just play, snuggle, and connect with their kids.

That's sad and I know most working moms would love to get more playing, snuggling, learning, and connecting time with their kids. But they just don't do as much of it as stay-at-home moms do! Is that so offensive to mention? Eight hours (or so) of the work that stay-at-home moms do, mainly the childcare part, is outsourced. Working moms are getting help for it.

I'm not saying they have it easier. Sure, it must be nice to get a shower every day and to be able to take a bathroom break. Some moms go back to work simply for the opportunity to dress up nice, get out of the house, and get adult company for eight hours. Work seems way easier when you've tried being a mom! But almost all working moms end up with most of the at-home burden when they walk in their front door too. They have eight hours of paid work and sixteen hours of unpaid work that they're doing. Whereas a stay-at-home mom has 24 hours of unpaid work. The working mom's 24 hours might be more or less difficult or pleasant than the at-home mom's 24, depending on the number of kids, the type of job, and how much help she's getting from others. But I don't think you can generalize and say, "ALL working moms have it harder and do more than ALL stay-at-home moms."

I don't think the mommy wars are ever going to go away, as long as stay-at-home moms say, "You're not caring for your kids as well as I am," and the working moms say, "Yes I am, PLUS more." But how can women stop saying these things when they made the choices they did for a reason? Why would women stay home unless they thought it was better? And why would women work outside the home unless they thought it was just as good? Even when they didn't actually have a choice, they still prefer to believe what they're doing is as good for their kids as what someone else is doing for hers.

So what do I do when people ask if I stay home with the baby or work? I generally answer, "I stay with him full-time, but I also work for an hour a day." That causes some furrowed brows, since most people aren't accustomed to jobs where babies are welcome. I think it puts me in a rather privileged position of being BOTH a stay-at-home mom and a work-outside-the-home mom, and I've never been judged or sidelined for my choices. But just because I am responsible for childcare 24 hours a day and working one hour a day doesn't mean I am working 25 hours a day. My thought when accepting the job was, "Well, I have to take care of the baby anyway, I may as well teach at the same time." Is it harder than taking care of him at home? Sometimes, and in some ways, but not in others. Finding time for grading is the hardest, because I don't have childcare. But I fit it in around baby time, like I fit in everything else.

Maybe it would help if people didn't assume that others' self-descriptions were about them. Me saying I'm a full-time mom doesn't mean you're a part-time mom -- I just describe myself that way because I'm doing specifically mom stuff during the 40 hours a week that would otherwise be used for a full-time job. You calling yourself a working mom doesn't mean I don't work -- you just have a job outside the home that you call "work." What does it hurt me what you call yourself? It has nothing to do with me. I'm fine with the person who has the job deciding what she calls it.

So, sure, since people find the term "full-time mother" offensive, I will have to think of something else. Unfortunately, everything I can think of that affirms and defends my choices will probably also offend someone. If I say, "I stay at home because I think my baby needs me with him," doesn't that mean that a working mom isn't fulfilling all of her kids' needs? Or if I say, "Nothing is more important to me than spending time with my son," doesn't it suggest that someone else has the wrong priorities? Perhaps I should just hang my head and mumble, "I stay home all day," and if people criticize me, judge me, or say I'm "less than" or "lazier than" other moms, I should just keep my mouth shut. When someone says "What do you do all day?" I should answer that I sit around doing nothing during those 40 hours a week when others work ... because, clearly, if they're doing all the mothering I'm doing plus 40 hours a week of work, than I must be wasting some time, somewhere. Playing stacking cups with my son just doesn't rank as useful work to some people -- if I suggest it is really vitally important, and that it's the kind of work that can't be outsourced, won't I make someone else feel bad?

I'm not really sure what to do about that. I truly don't judge others choices. I was a nanny, you know, and every working mom I worked for longed to be with her kids more. What they wanted was not more pats on the back for "having it all," but more support so that they could have actually had what they wanted. I was so impressed by this women, and yet I knew that I, as the nanny, could never take their place.

I try not to make other mothers feel bad, either. But there is a point where I think it's okay to be proud of what I do as well. I think I can say, "Kudos to you for fitting in all that you do. You must be really busy," and yet also say, "I don't think I could be doing any work better than the work I do all day." I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about me.

This has been a long ramble, and I'm not sure I've made sense. I would love some input here, especially from working moms, if there are any reading!

Friday, March 11, 2011

Prayer request

Remember my friends, Dave and Stephanie, that I'm always talking about? This week, their baby was born very premature and died two days later. So please pray for tiny David Edward. If you're Catholic, you can pray to him as well -- he was baptized during his brief time with us. Pray for comfort and healing for his family, and for all of us who wanted so much to meet him and know him.

Tuesday, March 8, 2011

Tuesday grocery shop

Last week I meant to post my receipt from Shoppers, but I lost it. I spent about $30 and got baking supplies, cheese, frozen vegetables (there was a great price!), and meat -- beef heart and beef knucklebones which I used to make stock and stew last night. I also got beets and cucumbers, which I lacto-fermented and which should be ready in a couple of days.

We were out of almost everything when I went today, so I have to admit I spent too much. My goal was $40 -- I went more than $10 over. Where could I have cut it? A couple of places ... I definitely could have done better.

10 lbs russet potatoes 4.39
White onions 2.59
Whole milk 2.49
This will end up in one or two quarts of yogurt for baby and me, and I drink the rest.
75% lean ground beef 5.99
I hope to make this last for at least four meals. Since it's Ash Wednesday tomorrow, we only have five meat-eating days this week. Not sure I can stretch the beef that far though! So the fifth night our only meat will be the chicken stock I have in the freezer from last week.
Light fruit cocktail .79
Apricot halves .99
Frozen raspberries 2.89
Impulse purchase ... shouldn't have ... sigh. We hadn't found much fruit that I wanted to buy, so I caved when these were by the door. But we do have mixed berries in the freezer, so I shouldn't have gotten these.
Diced tomatoes .49
2 cans of tuna @ .52 each
Tomato sauce .25
Elbow macaroni (1 lb.) 1.49
Diapers 5.39
I go through about a package every month and a half or so, because I use them out of the house. But I'm beginning to think I can manage cloth full-time, or at least on shorter trips. I usually put the baby in plastic when we go to work, but today I put him in cloth and we made it to work AND to the oil change without leaking. So I can definitely make it work! Hopefully this package of diapers will last longer than the last one.
Bananas .96
Sour cream .99
3 8 oz. packages of cheese 1.49 each
Baby only wants to eat cheese nowadays. I got a pound last week and it's almost gone. But cheese prices are awful, no matter where I buy it ... perhaps I can get the baby eating more yogurt cheese (which I make from strained yogurt) at least.
Bologna .99
Ham lunch meat 2.49
Another purchase I could have cut. I was really torn about it. The baby's a real meat eater, when he's not scarfing down cheese, and I don't always have leftovers to give him. So a couple of times last week, he had bologna. And I really don't feel good about giving that to him, because it has so many additives. Only, as I got home, it occurred to me that the ham probably has additives in it as well. There's no winning, is there?
Mild salsa 1.69
A "luxury" purchase ... but I do love it. Someday I'm going to make my own ... especially once I have my own garden.
Honey 4.49
I used up my last container of honey baking bread. I suppose I could use plain sugar, but I think honey's more healthful, and it goes better with whole wheat anyway.
Grapefruit .29
Just for me, a treat. Couldn't beat the price.
Iceberg lettuce 1.49
Green peppers 1.69
Roma tomatoes 2.49
White bread .79
TOTAL $53.05

So, that's our food for the week. Like I said, we're out of most other things, so that's pretty much what we've got, except for eggs, tortillas, and some pantry staples.

I'll do this week what I never do and actually write down my menu plan. I don't usually because the meat that I buy determines what I make -- I make the same things pretty much all the time.

Tuesday: broccoli-cheddar soup, using the chicken stock in the freezer (chicken stock, broccoli, potatoes, onions, cheddar cheese)
(Ash) Wednesday: bean burritos (beans, cheese, sour cream, salsa, lettuce, tomato)
Thursday: add meat to the burrito ingredients for tacos (beef, beans, cheese, sour cream, salsa, lettuce, tomato)
Friday: tuna-noodle casserole (tuna, macaroni, frozen peas, sour cream, cheese)
Saturday: spaghetti (beef, tomato sauce, onions, garlic, noodles)
Sunday: shepherds' pie (beef, stock, onions, peas, corn, mashed potatoes)
Monday: chili (beef, beans, diced tomatoes, onions, garlic, corn, salsa)

Lunches for John are leftovers from the night before (though I'll have to wrangle a little bit with the meatless leftovers to make sure he has meatless leftovers Wednesday and Friday) and/or baloney sandwiches. Breakfasts and lunches for me are eggs, yogurt, peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, lacto-fermented veggies, and homemade bread. Food for the baby includes leftovers, cheese, yogurt, veggies, and ham.

Top 10 Breastfeeding Misconceptions



Welcome to the March Carnival of Natural Parenting: Natural Parenting Top 10 Lists



This post was written for inclusion in the monthly Carnival of Natural Parenting hosted by Code Name: Mama and Hobo Mama. This month our participants
have shared Top 10 lists on a wide variety of aspects of attachment
parenting and natural living. Please read to the end to find a list of
links to the other carnival participants.



***






When you're pregnant, feeding your baby is something you might give some thought to. As in, "Hm, breast or bottle? I think breast. It's best, right?"

Then you have the baby, and you have a few struggles, so you do some research. You find out all kinds of information, so much stuff you wish you'd known sooner! And the next thing you know, you're so brimful of knowledge that every time someone says something ignorant about breastfeeding you are just dying to speak up.

However, when what people are saying is, "I wanted so badly to nurse my baby, but it didn't work out," you don't exactly want to come back with, "Actually, you could have, had you had the benefit of my amazing knowledge." So I tend not to reply ... but I store up these stories in my head so that I can share with people who have not yet had these problems, and my answers might do some good.

Without further ado, here are 10 things people say about breastfeeding that are not always true.

1. My baby never wanted to nurse.
All babies want to nurse. The question is, what is stopping the baby from being able to nurse? There are so many reasons. A healthy baby, placed skin-to-skin with mom immediately after birth, will usually nurse on his own within the hour. But if the baby is separated for some reason, he might not want to nurse immediately when he comes back. You may have to wait till he's awake and hungry. To help get things moving, you can put baby skin-to-skin (meaning naked on your bare chest) and let him nurse when he is ready. Check his rooting reflex by stroking his cheek. He'll turn in that direction and open his mouth. That means he wants to nurse!

Sometimes a baby might not want to nurse at birth because of discomfort. If he's been suctioned (like mine was) or if his jaw was hurt in the birth, it might take longer as well. Try to be patient, and see if you can get help.

2. I wanted to breastfeed, but my milk never came in.
My question is, how do you know it never came in? Were you nursing frequently? Did the baby's diapers turn from green and brown to yellow? Then your milk came in. Not everyone gets engorged when their milk comes in. If you're in doubt, express a little and look at the color. Colostrum is yellow; real milk is white. Transitional milk can be anywhere in between.

Some women don't have their milk come in as quickly as others. It may be delayed as much as a week due to some medications, having an IV during labor, or even no reason at all. Keep feeding the baby colostrum, supplement if necessary (preferably under the supervision of a lactation consultant or knowledgeable doctor) and be patient.

3. I knew I didn't have enough milk because my baby never burped.
Burping has nothing to do with having enough to eat, and everything to do with swallowing air. If a baby has a good latch, he might not burp at all. That's not a problem -- just one less thing for you to worry about!

4. My milk disappeared at six weeks.
This is another misconception caused by the "engorgement = milk" myth. During the first six weeks, most women have an oversupply. But around six weeks, the supply starts to regulate. Is the baby still producing enough diapers? Is he happy after nursing or screaming? He may nurse a lot at six weeks old because of a growth spurt -- but if he's just switching from side to side, nursing all day long, but happy and wetting regularly, he's getting enough.

5. My baby preferred the bottle/a binky to me.
This is not so much a "preference" as nipple confusion. A baby sucks differently at a breast, a bottle, and a pacifier. An exclusively breastfed baby can even vary his sucking based on what he wants -- deep sucking for hunger, and shallow sucking for comfort.

That shallow suck does not keep a pacifier in, so if a baby is always given a pacifier, he'll learn to suck deeply for comfort as well. And then you get a baby who can't comfort nurse, because he sucks hard and keeps getting milk. So frustrating! So he ends up with the binky, and chances are milk supply begins to decrease, baby starts getting hungry a lot, and you end up mixing up a bottle of formula. Then the baby "prefers" the bottle too, and next thing you know, you've weaned. Pacifiers and bottles may be introduced later (say around four weeks or older), but even so, they sometimes do cause confusion. Things only went really well for us once we lost the binky.

6. I didn't have enough milk -- I could only pump an ounce!
Some women respond very well to a pump, and some don't. The pump may get an ounce out while your baby gets six ounces. Lactation consultants often determine how much milk you are producing by weighing the baby, having you nurse him, then weighing again. That's the only reliable method to find out what he's getting.

Now, sometimes it's vital to be able to get out more milk with the pump. In these cases, it's helpful to have a slight oversupply. Some people have success with herbs like fenugreek or medications like domperidone. Others will find the secret to success is nursing a lot when they are with their baby -- at night, especially. Many moms will not be able to produce enough while exclusively pumping, which is why it's so vital to get the baby latching right from the get-go. If you do have to pump exclusively, be aware that it's going to be difficult. Some are successful and some aren't -- so don't beat yourself up if it doesn't work.

7. It was incredibly painful -- and his latch was perfect!
A baby's latch may appear "perfect" from the outside, but if he's not sucking properly, it will hurt like the dickens. When Marko has a stuffy nose, he can't suck well, so he tries biting. Not so nice! One common reason for a bad suck is tongue tie. There are many kinds of tongue tie and some are hard to detect -- so if you are experiencing pain, have him looked over by someone familiar with tongue tie. A tie can be clipped by an ear, nose, and throat doctor; it is not usually more than a pinch for the baby. And the difference can be dramatic!

Other suck problems may be caused by an injury to the jaw during birth -- a chiropractor or physical therapist can help you with that. Others just require practice. I've heard of "training" a baby to suck by having him suck your finger -- ask your lactation consultant.

The last reason that breastfeeding can be very painful is inverted or flat nipples. There's no cure for this one, but the pain will go away after a week or two. Other than that, nursing is NOT supposed to be painful, especially not very painful. Please see someone who can help you if you are experiencing pain!

8. I should not have had problems with nipple confusion, because I used a special "breast-like" bottle.
Sadly, there's no bottle that can imitate the breast. It might be a similar shape, but it will never require the serious sucking that a breast does. I've heard drinking out of a bottle compared to trying to do a beer bong! The milk just drips out, whether baby works for it or not. The baby might still want to nurse, but not remember how to suck, or that he'll have to suck for a few minutes before the milk appears. Don't introduce bottles before four weeks at the earliest!

9. I should not have had problems when I put my baby on a three-hour schedule. My sister did it and it worked fine for her.
Women have a different storage capacity for milk. Your sister might be able to hold three hours' worth of milk, while you can only hold two hours' worth. So if you feed your baby every three hours, he gets two hours' worth of milk every three hours. That's a recipe for disaster! Soon you will stop producing as much milk, because your body thinks it isn't needed. And the baby will stop gaining weight, or even lose weight. He may become dehydrated or fail to thrive. Please do not use these strict schedules -- feed your baby when he is hungry!

10. My baby self-weaned very suddenly at nine months.
Weaning is not usually sudden, and very rarely (if ever) do children wean themselves before the second year. Self-weaning happens when a toddler slowly reduces his nursing sessions, dropping them one by one. A sudden halt in all nursing is more likely a nursing strike. The baby loses interest in nursing for awhile, because of a new distraction like solid food. But he still needs milk. You can take the opportunity to wean to a sippy cup of formula if you want to, but otherwise, keep offering the breast, especially when he's sleepy. You may need to pump to keep up supply. A baby might stop nursing for a week or more and then come back to the breast! So if you wanted to nurse longer, don't despair just because of a temporary disinterest.

None of this is to say that there aren't real reasons why women can't breastfeed. Some really don't have enough milk. This is less common than people think, but it does happen. If you suspect low milk supply, watch wet diapers and weight gain carefully. Others don't breastfeed for myriad reasons -- incompatible medication, sickness, a medical crisis after birth, psychological discomfort, and so forth. Others could have overcome their difficulties in a perfect world, but didn't have the support to do so. Some women are devastated that they couldn't nurse. So it's important to be accepting and really listen to people's stories, instead of giving a ton of facts. This list is intended more to help other moms before they wean.

Can anyone think of more misconceptions? Did I miss anything?





***



Carnival of Natural Parenting -- Hobo Mama and Code Name: MamaVisit Hobo Mama and Code Name: Mama to find out how you can participate in the next Carnival of Natural Parenting!





Please take time to read the submissions by the other carnival participants:





(This list will be live and updated by afternoon March 8 with all the carnival links.)





Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Counter of days

I have always been a counter of days.

When I was a child, I longed to be older, to grow up. I climbed to the dizzy height of my treehouse, gazed out toward the lake, and dreamed of bigger things. I never knew I would miss that treehouse so much, even if it was only a few boards from an old fence dragged laboriously up the tree, one at a time.

When I finished high school, I could barely wait to be in college. At college, I imagined I would enjoy life more as a sophomore, or junior, or senior. I thought once I graduated, life would really begin. I didn't realize what an incredible period college was, where all my friends and mentors were in one place and not busy all the time, until it was almost time to leave.

When I was single, I was lonely and hoped I'd meet someone. Once I met someone, I was always wanting to define the relationship, not realizing he was courting me in his own original, hesitant way. When we were finally in a relationship, we walked arm in arm against the wind and dreamed of having a place of our own out of the cold. I didn't know how much I would miss those long walks, where we could talk and talk with all the time in the world. It didn't occur to me that in our own place, I wouldn't have the wind to blow me into the state of elation I lived in then.

When I was pregnant, I literally counted every day. I didn't realize that I was wishing for the end of the only time we would have for a long time as just the two of us.

Now I warn others in stages of life that I hurried past. "Enjoy it!" I urge them. "No hurry! The future will be here before you know it; live in the present!" And yet they never seem to listen. I tell dating girls not to stress about when the guy will propose: "Now is the time to build up your relationship and get yourselves in a good financial position. You don't want to marry before you're really ready!" I tell girls who haven't gotten pregnant, "You'll never be this free again, spend some time fixing up your house the way you want it and learning to cook!" I tell expectant parents, "The due date's just an estimate, so don't count days! Go out on a date, it'll be forever before you can again!"

And they don't listen to me. They probably know I'm right, but it's just so hard to stop counting days. To stop wanting a little more than what they have, imagining that life will get so much better in some number of days.

When Marko was born, he was tiny and precious and everyone told me, "Enjoy it! It lasts such a short time!" I looked at my tiny peanut and settled in for the long haul. I didn't want to spend too much time just staring at him, because then when would I get things done? I didn't want to wait too long before getting out again, because sooner or later I was going to have to get used to taking him out. I was looking forward to him learning to smile and sleeping through the night.

Around the time he did these things -- about six weeks old -- I had a moment of utter shock. They said fast, but no one had said six weeks. I kind of thought the newborn stage was pretty much what things were like for several months. But I looked at my baby and he didn't look a thing like he had when I first held him in my arms. He was so big! Where had the tiny one gone?

He is gone. Tiny Marko will never come again. I will never have a chance to watch him sleep in the fold of my elbow ever again.

I could spend time sniffling over that. (I may have done this a little.) Or I could get impatient for the next one. (I've done this some too.) But it's occurred to me that two, three, four months from now, I'll be crying out, "Where is crawling Marko? Where's the little guy who took those first, hesitant, staggering steps and fell into my arms shrieking with laughter?"

So let me never again be a counter of days. Let me look at my boy today and love him today. Yesterday I laid him down for a nap, but didn't feel like sleeping myself. I could have gotten up to do something. But instead I just lay there with him snuggled into my arm and watched him sleep. He will soon be too big to sleep with his head on my arm. A month ago, he didn't look like the big boy he does today. A month from now, he may not sleep in his baby way with his head turned toward me, making sure I'm there. I have only today to love my son.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...