Kathy D. wrote:
>In other words (and I'm truly just speculating here) there may be a window of opportunity in the first >hour(s) after birth during which stimulation of the nipples by the baby, with strong effective sucks, has to
>occur in order for the *normal* progression of milk production to take place.

This certainly makes a great deal of sense to me since this would be the biological norm. I am truly amazed at how many women *do* breastfeed, despite the distinctly "unbiological" atmosphere of so many hospitalized births. When my first child was born, in 1975, I was not allowed to nurse him for the first 24 hours. When I eventually put him to breast he had absolutely no idea how to nurse. I was lucky in that he was a fast learner and the mature milk came in with a vengeance on day 4. I had learned a lot by the time the other two were born. I insisted on nursing immediately after the births and my milk was in by 24-36 hours pp in both cases. Is anybody aware of any studies on the relationship between the timing of the baby first being put to breast and the development of mature milk? Has any research been done on the percentage of babies who have a poor suck and how many are due to iatrogenic factors? Contrarywise, how do we account for those women who have chosen not to br!
 eastfeed and yet still have milk w

eeks after giving birth?