Which baby rice cereal brand

[firsttimer08]

I want to start ds on rice cereal as he enters his 5th month. Are all of them the same or is there any difference?

I was debating between HIPP and Organix.

Thanks

ooh watch out, you're going to really get attacked because you're not waiting until the sacred 6th month. just a word of warning!

All the books written by doctors (MDs) say its ok to start weaning with rice cereal in the 5th month.

Where are you firsttimer? In the UK guidelines are 6 months.

Brand of baby rice, IMO, really does not matter. Organic LOTS more expensive as us mothers all mugs when it come to doing the "right" thing for our darling children.
In response to weaning, check out WHO guidelines: it is now recommended to feed exclusively breast or formula milk until baby is 26 weeks old, ie at END of 6th month. There are sound immunological reasons for these recommendations; check them out.
Feeding guidelines for babies change rather quickly and yes, in the Western world thankfully most babies survive just fine, almost in spite of what we feed them .
If your baby feels hungry it is perfectly reasonable to offer more milk feeds. In term of nutrition up to 12 months of age main "good stuff" comes from milk anyway and extra food is a bonus.
Oh, and yes, baby rice tastes like wall paper paste smells... yuck! I would try a bit of pureed fruit first as well.

hmm thanks - i'll need to do more reasearch on this then. I just assumed that weaning was the 'right' thing to do at this point !

you could skip baby rice altogether and just start on real, normal food - it's called baby-led weaning and it's fab

To answer your question, Hipp and Organix baby rice seemed much of a muchness to me/dcs. I bought it for all 5 of mine and used it for 1st tastes and also to pad out meals a little further along. My youngest baby (10mths) loves the Plum breakfast cereal with quinoa from 6mths I think. BLW which I more or less followed this time (5th baby) around is not a route all mothers wish to follow and certainly not one I followed with PFB.

Mummyfor3 - can you spell out the "sound immunological reasons" for waiting until 6 months? Or point me in the direction of the original published research? I haven't been able to find it anywhere, just repeated statements that it's best to wait until 6 months.

i agree with Jacwac i have three children, i fed all my children befor 6 months and as a matter of fact my health visitor said if she is more hungry then feed her. The guidelines changed because we are following what europe are doing, and they base there research on that. At the end of the day its up to you if you feel that your child is more hungrier than usual then follow your gut instinct, make sure your child gets plenty of milk. As i said i fed all my children befor 6 months and they are fine.

Another tip baby rice to start with for one week, then second week for lunch banana because its easy to make up and the baby can easilty eat it. Then the third week mash and veg mixed with either cheese or tuna. If you want baby recipies forgive myh spelling go tyo the book shop and buy annabel karmel she has fantastic recipies for children from 4 months on wards.

negril there are numerous reasons why "I did x and it was fine" is a ridiculous argument as there are so many variables - it's like saying "I crossed the road with my eyes shut and I was fine".
It's 6 months for a reason, why chance your child's future health?
Children of 4 months shouldn't be eating, really, so it doesn't matter what queen annabel karmel says to put in a recipe.

Also, if you do decide to wean early, they definitely shouldn't have cheese or tuna before six months.

negril - the guidelines have nothing to do with Europe! Who told you that? The UK (and US, and Canadian, and Australian, and yes, European, and everywhere else) guidance comes from studies carried out worldwide. In he UK, SACN, the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition, was charged with examining this evidence and concluded that the UK should adopt the same framework.

www.sacn.gov.uk/meetings/sub_groups/maternal_child_nutrition/index.html

There are World Health Organisation guidelines, which are on the web, but if anyone wants to check out the sysematic reviews behind the guidance I suggest going to the Cochrane database, looking at the work of Kramer and Kakuma. The 'question' they researched was 'optimal duration of exclusive breastfeeding', and the conclusions are, in the main, based on the immunological factors in breastmilk, and the fact that there is no nutritional deficit in introducing solids after six months - an important question, because babies who are protected, immunologically, by excl bf for 6 mths have to be shown to grow well, too. It's no good just checking for health; you have to check for growth, too.

Jacwac, I don't understand why people who are clearly used to using the internet say they cannot find the research on this...I agree, you need more than statements if you want to look for the reasons, but this stuff is not hard to find!

bringonthetrumpets, no one 'attacks' people here for not waiting until 6 mths (not the 'sacred 6th month' which is actually 5 mths!!).

But on a talk board, people will certainly talk about it

firsttimer, babies really don't need rice cereal. There's nothing wrong with it, but there are better foods to start your baby on, which are just normal family foods (of course, some families might hoover up baby rice cereal themselves, I suppose....but I doubt it!). Babies on the whole do not need anything but milk for 6 mths, so you can spare yourself the hassle

all babies different, i think its up to the mothers to make an informed decision as when to wean. Sometimes the 'experts' get it right sometimes they get it wrong. has blw been around long enough to carry out any conclusive studies on the long term health of the subjects??
personally i feel as much as a good diet, eating habits (and being sensible about when to begin weaning)help, surely many other factors contribute to long term health greatly.

babies vary so much in their development, 6 months can't be right for them all.

horses for courses imo.

minkers:

• no one says that 6 mths is right for all babies. Guidance gives advice on what to tell parents in general and includes words about advice being 'individually' or something similar. The precision of '6 mths' is an artefact of research - in real life, it's more like 'about six months'

no one says that weaning age is the be-all and end-all of health - you are arguing as if people don't* think that 'other factors' contribute to health

• baby led weaning has been around for millennia - it's just another way to nourish small human beings. What sort of conclusive studies do you want? There are no conclusive studies on the long-term health of people raised on spooned-in purees

In defence of baby rice, and without getting drawn into the debate of WHEN to wean:

I think it's OK to use as a weaning food because you can use it firstly to make a kind of thick milk, so there will be a familiar flavour but a thicker more solid texture. Also, if you do want to go down the puree route it can be helpful for thickening up some fruit and veg purees which can turn out a bit runny.

but all it is is powdered rice. There isn't going to be any difference between brands.

I agree fluffy - nowt wrong with it, and as all brands are just rice, there can't be much difference (though some have added vitamins in). To me, it's a reasonably convenient thickener, as you say - yet somehow, it's become thought of as compulsory for all babies

Hi Firsttimer

Haven't tried Organix but we use HIPP and it tastes fine (better than another brand I tried). It's basically just rice flour so there's not that much difference between them.

There are lots of posts on MN about the weaning guidelines and lots of literature out there too so do take a look at those so you can make the right decision for your baby.

As others have said, you don't have to start with rice but is a great thickener and also good to start with as it is fairly bland.

tiktok

BLW is without a doubt all the rage, whether its been around for millennia or not.

I do feel that like someone else mentioned people who choose to wean using puree are often pounced on and have lots of 'blw' stuff thrown at them as if they are doing something wrong when infact they aren't.

I'm not against blw, or puree just for freedom of choice thats all.

'no one says that weaning age is the be-all and end-all of health - you are arguing as if people don't think that 'other factors' contribute to health'

Its not easy bringing children up, trying to do it all right, breast feeding, sleepless nights, feeding them the right stuff, i was just attempting to put weaning into perspective. Personally i feel its far more significant what goes in (esp long term) than in what form (puree or as a whole)

As an example (albeit an extreme one) my friend breast fed exclusively then chose blw, her ds eats little other than chips (but he was ebf til 6 months and weaned at his own pace) My other friend ebf for 4 months, weaned onto a variety of pureed fruit and veg, progressing to chicken , fish , cheese etc by 6 months.
Baby A still has a preference for chips and only chips, baby B eats what the rest of the family eat (a varied and interesting diet)

We are all different. The op waas about weaning with puree and sadly once again it becomes a debate about blw v's puree! Its always back and white never grey.

minkers, you are not reading the thread. Plenty of posts are 'grey', including mine