Elizabeth Boggs mentioned 0.5 oz as the best amount her baby ever took and thought some of us would think it was a typo.  Absolutely not.  I'm not the least bit surprised that this can happen after a breast surgery.  At the time I saw my lactation consultant, she didn't carry a scale, but I don't think my son got much more than that from the side where I had a fibroanenoma removed and the surgeon never bothered to explain where she was going to do the incision.  Had I known, I would have objected.  In my case, I know it affected nerves and that impeded milk release.  But from my observations, I'm fairly convinced that I too released better to the pump on that side than to my son.

Elizabeth - I say woohoo -- what a great job to keep up the feeding on the breast that helped your baby's oral development and provided antibodies directly.  That is a great accomplishment given all the extra work you did to help your breast release milk after a surgery.  Tons more work than those who have easy release breasts.  And that's great that your baby could take 0.5 oz.  I've seen mothers with insufficient glandular tissue whose babies could only take 0.2 ml - and they did that for quite a while because they really enjoyed mom's breasts.  16 oz is also a big woohoo for me considering your circumstances.  

I think the old addage that the "baby is more efficient than the pump" causes lots of problems.

First of all, having weighed and measured intakes for over 10 years now - in the majority of cases I see that the vast majority of pumps really can get out more milk faster than a baby can and get milk out after the baby is done.  And anedotal data from my clinical practice does What is inefficient about pumping and bottle feeding when you have a baby that feeds well - is that you segregate the other activities from feeding.  So you have to separately:

a) feed your baby
b) drain your breasts
c) provide skin contact (which now may not happen because very few parents bottle feed skin to skin
d) ensure that the feeding container is clean (you don't have to wash breasts)
e) ensure that the milk collection equipment is clean (you don't have to wash out the baby's mouth)

With a caveat -  insurance industry is ordering crappy pumps for those who purchase their policies.  Women are not really getting free pumps because they are paying the insurance industry - and the industry is not doing their job by evaluating the pumps. So this is changing as I see the damage caused by crappy pumps.  

So, I think in most cases, many women can remove milk more "quickly" and often remove a "greater amount" with a pump than with a baby.  In a few cases women don't.  I remember all of those women who don't.

In most normal healthy situations "quick" and "more" is unnecessary because it creates other additional work that outweighs the advantages.  

In some cases "quick" or "more" is helpful and sometimes it is "absolutely necessary".

In reality I have only met a few mothers whose babies could drink more more than their pumps could remove or whose babies could drink more milk more quickly than their pumps could remove it.  These were typically mothers who also had a slower response releasing milk to their babies.  Perhaps due to a slower milk ejection reflex or smaller milk ducts.  I think some women with skinny ducts or deeper ducts do not respond well to mechanical devices.  Ditto for edematous breasts.  

I can't tell you how many women I have seen who really needed to use a pump who were told "your baby is more efficient" who ended up with a baby who:
a) failed to thrive
b) received formula that would not have been needed
c) suffered from engorgement, plugged ducts and/or mastitis
d) did not establish or maintain their milk supply

Yes, we do need to encourage feeding at the breast because in our busy modern world some mothers don't take the time to connect with their babies -- but we do need to throw out a tool that can be, under the appropriate circumstances, a vital tool for preserving the ability for some mothers to give their own milk to their babies. 

Finally, I actually really hate to start off an infants life with presenting them as beings that have to be "efficient" right from birth.  "Efficiency" is a term that I think should be reserved for machines.  "Babies" are wonderful beings that should just be allowed to "be" and not necessarily "perform".  Perhaps this irks me because I live in New York City where babies are being tested and evaluated at age 2 as they enter preschool.  At one school, an interview question for 2 year olds was "what is 200 + 200.  I kid you not. I'm sure its more expensive now, but it used to be about $5,000 to tutor your child for the IQ and ERB tests that are used to select kids for kindergarten.  Kids are herded from one "enrichment event" to another with "structured activities".  Never a chance to just "be". Since I grew up in the country, when my son was little I would roam Central Park and venture to the outer reaches of the subways to the 4 zoos, the two botanical gardens, and the beach at Coney Island and to save my own sanity.  Looking back I realize that I am very happy my son had time to just roam around in those spaces without having "an objective".  We just were.  

Best, Susan Burger

             ***********************************************

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome