> Kathy D. wrote: There is plenty of evidence that adding
> solids to the diet between 4 and 6 months helps kids grow better under
> certain circumstances.  This doesn't mean they don't still need their
> mothers' breast milk -- they obviously do.  But it may not be enough after
4
> months under adverse conditions.

And Gonneke asked: >>But, if the conditions are that adverse that mothers'
milk is not sufficient
(which means maternal food status is really, really bad), where do they get
the
good foods to complement?<<

The "adverse conditions" Kathy referred to need not necessarily refer to
poor maternal food status, right?  I just finished reading the book, "Only
Mothers Know:  Patterns of Infant Feeding in Traditional Cultures" written
by Dana Raphael and Flora Davis, published in 1985.  They describe several
traditional cultures where the mothers said they exclusively breastfed but
in fact began introducing solids as early as a few weeks of age in the
infant.  The "adverse conditions" are sometimes a reference to the fact that
many mothers in traditional cultures don't have the luxury of being with a
baby full-time for the first 4 to 6 months of life.  As the authors report
regarding a village in south India, "it is the local custom to begin feeding
babies rice gruel before they are three months old, families use this food
to tide the baby over while the mother is at work; the mother-in-law or an
older child gives the feedings."

Sara Dodder Furr, MA, LLL Leader
Lincoln, Nebraska

             ***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html