Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hello all,


I start weaning my daughter just before 5 month after checking with the HV ( i felt she was ready) so far really good. The only I worry I have is that her milk take has decreased dramatically... She seems to be more happy with meals rather than milk. The only time I can get a good amount of milk down her is at night. I know babies drop feeds once they are on solids but to this extent? I have got it in my head that it is important that during these months milk is really important, more than solids but she seems to prefer solids much more.


Just to note, her breakfast cereal is made up with milk and her rice which she also has with pureed veg is also mixed with her milk..


Anyone else had similair experiences? Will speak to HV at next visit but justr wanted some first hand thoughts and comments.



Sellena

Hi Sellena,


Are you offering her food before milk? If so, I would switch it - so milk first, then food afterwards. At this stage it is the milk that is more important, as it contains far more nutritional goodness than early weaning foods do. It's easy to get carried away and up the quantities of solids too quickly.


When I weaned each of my kids I took it pretty slowly, and didn't up them to 3 meals a day until around 8 months, at which point I introduced lunch as well as solids at breakfast and dinner time.


My baby is 10 months now, but still has milk before breakfast (usually quite a big feed) as well as quick feeds before lunch and dinner and a long feed before bed.


Good luck.

Hi Pickle,


Thanks for your reply.


In the morning, I make up her milk and she refuses out right.. but if i sit her in her high chair and she watched me make up breakfast then the chewing starts! About an hour or two after breaky she gets tired and I manager to get a small feed down. Lunch is new this week, with both lunch and dinner I usually get her when she is not super hungry or full. I will try the bottle then food.


Thanks again.


Sellena

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • This is why the NFU are so unhappy that Clarkson is involved as it distracts from the issues for real farmers. Your assumption that all land is purchased as a tax dodge is a wide sweeping dog whistle generalisation and, I suspect, a long way from the truth but something to government would love for people to think. Again, read this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62jdz61j3yo          
    • Anyone got any feedback on Transgender Awareness Week over the last week? I don't. And neither has my wife. And neither have my sisters. And neither has my mum, nor my daughter   x
    • It's an estate that they have been gifted. They may choose to earn a living from it, or to sell all, or part of it. In many cases, the land will only have been purchased as a way to avoid tax (as is the case for people like Clarkson, Dyson and other individuals with significant land holdings) and has little to do with farming at all. The idea that if I give you land worth £3m + tomorrow Rocks, it's not an massive windfall, but simply a necessary tool that you need to earn a living is silly. It's no different from someone inheriting any other estate where they would usually be required to pay 40% tax and settle up immediately.  If you're opposed to any tax on those inheriting multi-million pound estates - I would be interested in who you would like to place a greater tax burden upon? Or do you simply think we should watch public services collapse even further.
    • Because it's only a windfall if they sell it - until that time it is an asset - and in this case a working asset but, as far a the government is concerned a taxable asset. The farm is the tool that they use to earn a living - a living that they will be taxed on in the same way a nurse is - it's just to do their job they are now expected to pay extra tax for the privilege - just because the farm was passed to them. Or are you advocating nurses pay tax on the tools they are provided to do their job too? 😉  Now, if they sell the farm then yes, they should pay inheritance tax in the same way people who are left items of value from relatives are because they have realised the value and taken the asset as cash.  Our farming industry is built upon family business - generations of farmers from the same families working the land and this is an ideological attack and, like so many of Labour's policies, is aimed at a few rich farmers/farm owners (insert pensioners on Fuel Duty), but creates collateral damage for a whole load of other farmers who aren't rich (insert 50,000 pensioners now struggling in relative poverty due to Winter Fuel) and will have to sell land to fund it because, well, they are farmers who don't earn much at all doing a very tough job - the average wage of someone in agriculture is, according to the BBC around £500 a week and the national average is £671. Do you see the point now and why so many farmers are upset about this? It's another tax the many to get to the few. Maybe farmers should wear Donkey jackets rather than Barbour's and the government may look on them a little more favourably.... Some good background from the BBC on why farmers are fighting so hard. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62jdz61j3yo
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...