Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Infant feeding

Get advice and support with infant feeding from other users here.

So today I learned that gorillas nurse their young until they are 3 or 4....

331 replies

georgimama · 12/10/2008 22:09

That's it really. Was at Bristol Zoo and the lovely keeper gave a talk about all their gorillas. They have a 23 month old baby and he is still nursing and apparently will continue to do so until he is about 3 or 4.

I just thought that was lovely. Seriously cute gorilla baby.

OP posts:
AnarchyAunt · 16/10/2008 09:55

Baby guinea pigs are born fully formed though - they pop out and run round the cage squeaking and eating lettuce immediately.

Different.

berolina · 16/10/2008 09:55

drama, is that figure from one study, and were socio-economic factors controlled for? I know ff increases SIDS risk, but the 50% figure surprises me a little too.

VictorianSqualorSquelchNSquirm · 16/10/2008 09:57

Oh, and I meant to say about weaning. From what I have researched for my blog it seems that formula milk is the main cause of people weaning their child off the breast earlier and earlier.

IT started back in the late 1800s when the first formula milk was introduced although formula was not widespread until the early-mid 1900s, at which point women were beginning to enter the workforce, both thanks to the acceptance of women in employment and the need for it during the war when our menfolk were out fighting.

It meant women were not as able to stay home and breastfeed their babies so formula milk was more and more widely used. However, formula milk was not to the standard it is today so the babies were missing vital nutrition and many got scurvy or rickets.

The way to counteract this was to start weaning on to solid foods earlier and earlier.

Those who were breastfeeding followed suit as the suggested age for weaning on to solid foods was around 3-4 months, which then changed to 4months and in 2001(WHO)/2003(DoH) changed to 6 months.

InTheDollshouse · 16/10/2008 10:04

berolina, the figure is from FSID.

(Note they report it as breastfeeding reducing the risk of SIDS by 33.3%; that is the same as formula feeding increasing the risk by 50%).

berolina · 16/10/2008 10:05

thanks drama

InTheDollshouse · 16/10/2008 10:09

Diane Wiessinger explains the maths in Watch Your Language, but here's my attempt:

Say 30 non-breastfed babies die from SIDS (completely arbitrary number I picked just for this example). If breastfeeding reduces the risk by 1/3, then 20 BF babies die from SIDS. Looking at it the other way round, starting with 20, then 30 is a 50% increase from 20. So non-breastfed babies are 50% more likely to die from SIDS than BF babies.

Upwind · 16/10/2008 10:35

From drama's link - for the nerds amoung us:

"Several published studies have found that breastfeeding protects against the risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). One meta-analysis of 23 reports (i) concluded that formula fed infants were more than twice as likely to die from SIDS than breast fed infants with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.11 (95% CI 1.66-2.68).

Recently the USA Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) performed a more stringent meta-analysis (ii) incorporating 6 studies in which SIDS was rigorously defined and the duration of breastfeeding specified. They found that ever breastfeeding reduced the risk of SIDS compared with never breastfeeding, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.64 (95% CI 0.51-0.81). It is therefore clear that breastfeeding should be recommended as a protective measure against SIDS, in addition to the other well known reasons for promoting the practice.

i) McVea KL, Turner PD, Peppler DK. The role of breastfeeding in sudden infant death syndrome. J Hum Lact. 2000; 16: 13-20.

(ii) Ip S, Chung M, Raman G, Chew P, Magula N, DeVine D, et al. Breastfeeding and maternal and infant health outcomes in developed countries. Evidence report/technology assessment No. 153 (prepared by Tufts-New England Medical Center Evidence-based Practice Center, under contract No. 290-02-0022) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2007. p. 1-186. www.ahrq.gov/clinic/tp/brfouttp.htm

FioFio · 16/10/2008 10:36

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

VictorianSqualorSquelchNSquirm · 16/10/2008 10:37

Fio, I actually started googling to see what percentage of a guinea pig's life a week was to see a human in comparison. Then I decided I couldn't be arsed with the math

FioFio · 16/10/2008 10:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

AnarchyAunt · 16/10/2008 10:45

I know...

Was just trying to work similar out re. guinea pigs [obsessed]

But they are v v different in maturity at birth, I have always thought they were strange as they are born fully fledged really. Just, well, smaller. Not like most rodents that are born all pink and ugly.

FioFio · 16/10/2008 10:46

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

VictorianSqualorSquelchNSquirm · 16/10/2008 10:49

LOL Fio!
Aren't humans one of the only species born at that stage of pregnancy or did I remember that wrong? I'm sure I read somewhere that humans would be born later if we travelled on all fours.

FioFio · 16/10/2008 10:50

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

tiktok · 16/10/2008 12:26

Yes, 'tis true, according to those who know about these things.

We have large heads, and we have to stop growing and be born before our heads get too big for the female pelvis...so there is a trade-off, because we are born big-bonced, but still very, very dependent for care and protection on our parents.

Nature could have evolved us so our heads kept growing and growing, and our nervous systems developed so that our legs worked straight away and our digestive processes were ready to go straight onto Big Macs and fries after an hour of breastmilk.

We would, however, have the most gi-normous arses and would certainly not be able to wear designer jeans, in order to give birth to our off spring.

noolia · 16/10/2008 12:40

I've got a weird picture in my head of a dolphin with boobies.
What about big animals, like elephants, how long do they feed their young? Is their a difference between predators and prey?

VeniVidiVickiQV · 16/10/2008 13:14

What about kangaroos/joeys? they remain very dependent for some time. Although the joey does a pretty amazing breastcrawl in the first instance up to the pouch and to safety

Kathyis6incheshigh · 16/10/2008 13:15

Did you know a blue whale's milk is thick, like toothpaste, instead of being liquid?

Rhubarb · 16/10/2008 13:16

You say you don't want to play top trumps or start using baby death statistics to make a point, yet you'd still like my opinion? Why? So I can dig myself into a hole?

Contaminated baby milk is a horrible thing, just as contaminated baby food is.

Sure it would be lovely if, in an ideal world, everyone would bf and then wean onto natural products that don't come out of jars. But it's not and for those mothers who failed to bf, this evidence doesn't help them. Linking ff to cot death is really not on. Talk about hitting mothers where it hurts!

You could also say, as one midwife said to me when I had given birth to dd, that if I had given birth in the dark ages and failed to bf, my baby would die. I found that comment very upsetting and sick and it certainly didn't help me to carry on bfing. In fact a woman in the next bed overhead and then proceeded to encourage me to ff instead. But I did bf, both of mine.

However my original point was not to get into an argument of which is best - that is simply not the point and I've tried to say that time and time again. It was to pick up on something other posters said about the animal kingdom and developing countries having the right idea because they are closer to nature, less westernised, more culturally correct.

However their reason for bfing is largely because they don't have a choice. So in rural Ethopia, presumably if a woman cannot bf for whatever reason, that baby dies. They use it as contraception and also because it's a good source of nutrition in an area where nutritious food is hard to come by.

Let's not start making this thread anti-ff.

SharpMolarBear · 16/10/2008 13:18

I didn't know that Kathy but I suppose it would have to be or it'd just spread through the water
OK stupid question time - where are a whales nipples?

Rhubarb · 16/10/2008 13:24

"This is hard. What is the right thing to do, when someone posts "there's no difference between breastfeeding and formula feeding" or words to that effect?"

I take it that was aimed at me? I don't know how many times I have to say that I breastfed both of my children, I think breastfeeding is A VERY GOOD THING, I think it is more beneficial than ff. In fact if you read my posts, just count the times I have said that. The reason I've had to repeat myself over and over is because people are not reading my posts, they are jumping to conclusions and getting their maths wrong.

You cannot compare developing countries to this country, you cannot compare the animal kingdom to this country. Their reasons for doing things are different to our reasons. I hate the argument that because gorillas bf until the baby is 4 or 5, we should do the same - well gorillas wipe their arses with their hands too, should we do that?
In rural Ethopia too they breastfeed because there really is no choice, which is another good thing (apart from Nestlé). But if they had the choice, many would choose to ff because they see it as the healthiest and richest thing to do. They also wean by the "swallow or suffocate" method - does that mean we should do that too?

You cannot compare 2 completely different cultures. Or indeed species.

Am I understood now?

LittleMyDancingWithTheDevil · 16/10/2008 13:36

I can't believe that a thread about gorillas has turned into yet ANOTHER breastfeeding formula feeding debate.

Last time we went to Bristol Zoo, the new young male lion weed all over my nieces. Right their faces

InTheDollshouse · 16/10/2008 13:43

Rhubarb - "Linking ff to cot death is really not on." I'm not sure what you mean by this. The link exists. Are you suggesting that I made it up? I mentioned it because in an earlier post you said you didn't believe that FF increased the risk of mortality in developed countries.

Where has anyone on this thread suggested that women in developing countries are "closer to nature"? (What a horribly racist view!) The only person I've seen put forward that view is you - you're putting forward spurious arguments in order to have something to rail against.

Rhubarb · 16/10/2008 13:48

There isn't any one cause of cot death. No-one really knows what causes it. Saying that it is linked to formula is horrible. Yes that article does say that, but I'm sure there are many other studies that say differently. After all, putting babies on their fronts used to be good for them, now we have to put them on their backs.

'closer to nature' - is that racist? Only in your mind. They are not Westernised, that is the point.

I'm sorry my points don't make sense to you, perhaps I should type slower?

I illustrated my point very well in my last post. That you cannot look at developing countries or Apes and say that because they do something, we should do it.

I think that linking ff to infant mortality is a dangerous thing to do.

AnarchyAunt · 16/10/2008 13:49

We live in a culture where our perceptions of what is 'good, 'natural', etc, are completely and totally fucked up.

Years of advertising, pressures that never used to exist, advances in medical science and food technology that make formula safer than ever before... our expectations are very different now.

Surely its a good thing to recognise that we, as big brained primates born comparatively early, are meant to breastfeed for far far longer than it has become dangerous not to/normal/'necessary'/expected we will. Its not about saying, Everyone Must Do This, but about accepting that there are risks involved with losing sight of what we are physiologically meant to do.

Swipe left for the next trending thread