Like Magda, I observe from the posts that test weighing may (in the right hands) have a role to play...alongside a good knowledge of bf in all its many aspects, a high level of skill and support, and alongside good 'follow through' ....plus an almost 100 per cent reliable set of scales. None of these circumstances prevailed when test weighing (thankfully) disappeared (almost) a generation ago in the UK. I am *still* puzzled over what would be a 'good', 'poor' or 'average' result in a test weigh - given that we know feeds differ in volume and in calorific content. And even if you have a notional 'norm' of x mls per feed, you could, surely, get a 'false positive' or a 'false negative' where that one feed meets or doesn't meet the norm, and the next feed might be different. Surely the overall weight and progress of the baby, his behaviour at the breast, how the mother experiences bf (pain-free? satisfied the baby's happy?), latching and feeding, overall behaviour and response tells you a lot more? Anyone want to enlighten me? However, knowing the limitations of what the test weigh can indicate, I guess, is part of knowing about bf...and in an informed and bf-friendly person's repertoire, test weighing could have a place. I know when test weighing was done here, it was done (on innaccurate scales, of course) to 'prove' bf was inadequate and to 'prove' the need for supplements. My heart would sink if midwives and hps started doing it again...electronic scales or no electronic scales. As I posted yesterday, UK babies are in any case routinely and regularly weighed as part of normal infant care, and this is welcome - as Pat says it's quite different from test weighing. When a mother contacts me, I need to know how the baby is growing. Thanks for all the responses on this - what do you do elsewhere in the world? I'd love to know. Heather Welford Neil NCT bfc Newcastle upon Tyne