Stage 2 / 6 month+ formula - is it a con?

[Nunners]

I am thinking ahead a month or so to when my DS turns 6 months and we think about weaning him. I am still looking into BLW and irrespective of whether I do it or not, I can see that the bulk of his calories will still be given through his milk.

So my thought process is this - if I were breastfeeding, my milk would still be breastmilk. The first stage formula is supposed to be breastmilk substitute, which I assume is the most calorie-dense and the most like breastmilk. So why would I change to a second milk just because he starts on solids? In fact, it strikes me as even more important to make sure that he is still able to get as many calories as possible through his milk once he starts on solids, particularly if I do go down the BLW route. I would have thought that the closest replica of breastmilk would be the wisest choice to do this.

Am I missing something?

The cost.. I have formula fed 3 dds and with the previous two I just stuck to the first stage formula until 12 months. With dd3 I moved at 6 months to Stage 2 because it was cheaper, I could get offers on it etc. There is no difference between it and first stage, apart from the fact that it is advertised, can have promotions run on it etc.

I think 6month+ formula has a different whey content than 1st milk, but similar apart from that. 2nd milk says on the packet to delay the onset of early weaning (or of your DH's family to make the baby sleep longer asap!) so don't think it's intended for alongside weaning

Follow on milk from 6 months is Stage 3 milk (Stage 1 - first milk, Stage 2 - hungry milk). I did switch as it was cheaper and you could get offers on it too.

I switched with my two as well as you can get points on it in Tesco etc!

I was getting through more than one carton at day between 5-6 months so it was worth it. I did ask my HV before I did it, and she said it was fine, there was no discernible difference between them.

I don't mean to hi jack your thread but im confused too. HV and NHS leaflet i have on weaning says don't bother with follow on milk- though didn't say why. I use Hungry milk and don't know if I stay with that go back to First milk (although that won't fill him will it especially until hes taking a decent amount of solids) or just go onto follow on milk.

Well there is a difference as there has to be. It was invented a few years ago to get around the advertising ban on baby formula which is only for first stage milk. In countrys where they either don't have the ban or follow the WHO code more closely and ban advertising on fromula upto 2years then follow on milk isn't sold.

Yes you can get point and discounts on it as this is part of the ban on first infant milks they are not alowed to offer discounts or promotions on it.

As another poster has pointed out it has a different whey content, which is harder for baby's to digest which is why it's not sutibule for baby's under 6months. It also has a higher iron content which can make some baby's consipated but in others that a good thing as they do start to need more iron. But you should be able to provided this via diet even if BLW.

It's such a minefield :(

Analytical Armadillo posted this today about follow on formula:

www.analyticalarmadillo.co.uk/2010/08/breastfeeding-q-ask-armadillo.html

Personally if I was FFing I would stick with infant formula for the first year, then move to cow's milk. Infant formula isn't "closer to breastmilk" than follow on formula (any age-appropriate formula will ensure that a child will grow and thrive, but it is simply a food, not the immunological support that BM has), but it is lower in certain components than follow on formula (eg iron, salt etc). This doesn't mean that babies suddenly need more iron or salt, but that as miggril says, it legally has to be slightly different to infant formula and the salt content means it's unsuitable for infants under 6 months.

It contains more Iron. Apparently babies are born with a supply but it starts to run out by about 6 months.

Weelll, yes, healthy, term babies are born with a good supply of iron, which will last for the first 6-12 months (doesn't just stop at 6). Ideally the cord should be left to stop pulsating before it's cut which ensures the maximum blood and therefore iron transfer back to the baby.

It's not that they hit 6 months and BAM - no iron.

However, the iron in breastmilk (of which there is much less than in formula) is very highly bio-available (ie easily absorbed, so less is needed in the milk). Iron in formula is not easily absorbed.

Ideally the iron (and zinc is the other mineral that starts to become important) should come from complimentary foods, not formula. It's more balanced and more easily absorbed by the body. Meat is a fab source. Apple puree can limit the iron absorbtion so can be a poor choice of weaning food.

Really, because follow up formula is cheaper, that makes it a serious contender. However it's not necessary to change to it from infant formula, and realistically it's probably healthier to stick with stage 1.

They're allowed to advertise follow on. That's the main reason why it exists. In the US where they are allowed to advertise newborn formula, not all brands even have a follow-on version.

If you read the link above, a new study shows iron enriched formulas were related to impaired development...

Stage 1 formula should be enough, formula for children over 6 months was invented so the formula milk companies could advertise it. Also, I found follow on milk to be very sweet indeed.