Wee foal test lied

[Bonny]

Honestly unless I find out a good reason why I got a false positive, I doubt I will use it again either. I will stick with the blood test.

It is a great idea and I loved the ease of it. But how can I trust the result now?

 

[Dona]

My vet told me that she prefers to do a blood test on minis to determine pregnancy. The test itself costs $68 or something, she said it is pretty accurate. They are testing for progesterone.

Of course a vet is going to tell you that....as it's more business for them. And I can vouch that blood tests are not very reliable either. I've had several blood test done by my vets come up wrong. I've had 100% accuracy with the Pregnamare tests however. Just this year I tried the Wee Foal tests....anxious to see how accurate they are.

 

[Mona]

I hardly think you can compare an actual scientific test to a string test!! Lets compare apples to apples here.

I also wanted to add, I am surprised to hear about all the things that they say CAN cause a false positive, since they have said right in the directions that there are NO false positives.

THAT was a little disappointing to hear!

I have used these tests on several mares, and so far, it has been 100% accurate.

 

[appymini]

I hardly think you can compare an actual scientific test to a string test!! Lets compare apples to apples here.

I also wanted to add, I am surprised to hear about all the things that they say CAN cause a false positive, since they have said right in the directions that there are NO false positives.

THAT was a little disappointing to hear!

I have used these tests on several mares, and so far, it has been 100% accurate.

I only brought the string test up. As she was in heat and the string was still moving. I have always relized it is just a game.And you can`t go by it. She might just be a mare that keeps you guessing

 

[ClickMini]

Dona, when I got this info from my vet, we were discussing ultrasounds actually. She said she preferred doing a blood test to doing the ultrasound. The blood test is actually less expensive than doing the ultrasound.

We are so lucky here that we have great access to some very good vet hospitals. While I am sure they are not averse to picking up a few extra bucks here or there, I have found more often than not that they do that through increased costs for specific procedures, etc., rather than performing extra "stuff." The one I use is pretty darned conservative. I have a great relationship with the vets from that clinic, they are very honest with me I feel.

Amy

My vet told me that she prefers to do a blood test on minis to determine pregnancy. The test itself costs $68 or something, she said it is pretty accurate. They are testing for progesterone.

Of course a vet is going to tell you that....as it's more business for them. And I can vouch that blood tests are not very reliable either. I've had several blood test done by my vets come up wrong. I've had 100% accuracy with the Pregnamare tests however. Just this year I tried the Wee Foal tests....anxious to see how accurate they are.

 

[Bonny]

Honestly,I am glad to hear that there are things that can alter the test results. Because I know I am capable of performing the test accurately.

But I wonder why the dont explain this on the web site. It says debris wont effect the test results.

I am glad so many have had good results. I just wonder if there was an off batch or something. The only thing I did different was to worm Bonny the day before I tested. I cant imagine that would alter the test though...

The funny thing is Now after hearing the blood test could be wrong....I am again wondering.

But Bonny did let the stallion breed in February, so who knows, maybe she is pregnant from that.

 

[appymini]

WeeFoal was nice to send me another try.So I did her today.And I got one line. So I guess she must be foal.

 

[Fantasia]

Well, I was one of the trial users for wee foal test and only ever had two problems:

One, an inconclusive test which we believe was a test fault - replacement test sent and correct result ensued.

Two: My old mare gave a false positive on very thick urine, sent urine sample off to Keith and he tested and found her at low end of pregnancy. We re-tested a month later to find not in foal. Suspect she lost foal and hadn't adjusted down to non-preg hormone levels.

I actually used the Wee Foal checker to test a maiden mare this year who went WAY over - we tested her at 345 days and got a positive result. Internal exam confirmed. And, yes, she'd had NO foal movement!!!!

All my urine is collected in clean containers

I have had a number of false results from blood tests also. Mainly in mares in the 45-90 day bracket.

SOOOOOO. I guess the moral of the story is ya never really know until the lil tykes hit the ground

 

[Boinky]

Boy that's funny that they would send you an e-mail stating all the things that could cause false, and things they have seen cause false possitivies, when they CLAIM RIGHT ON THEIR info that there are NO false possitives. doesn't sound that way to me! I think it even says on their web page in the case studies there were no false possitives yet we are hearing there were? they really need to reword their web page to something like "very few false possitives".

it says right in their info that dirt and debris ect will not alter the readings.....

 

[Bonny]

Boy that's funny that they would send you an e-mail stating all the things that could cause false, and things they have seen cause false possitivies, when they CLAIM RIGHT ON THEIR info that there are NO false possitives. doesn't sound that way to me! I think it even says on their web page in the case studies there were no false possitives yet we are hearing there were? they really need to reword their web page to something like "very few false possitives".

it says right in their info that dirt and debris ect will not alter the readings.....

Tell me about it. I had my vet look at it and he was surprised.

But the "catch" per say is that its user error. If the test is preformed in exactly the way stated and the test hasnt been compromised by temperature then it should be accurate.But user error can be from the collection through running the test.

 

[Boinky]

yes but if it's "user error" they should state that there has been found to be false possitives due to USER ERROR in such and such circumstances. that is a VERY deceptive if not a outright lie that there are no false positives.... in my book anyhow! they also shouldn't say that you can use a dirty sample if that's the case as well. somewhere i read in their info that it didn't have to be a sterile sample ect.

 

[qtrmoonfarm]

Just to clarify, the test info on WeeFoal regarding the false positive factors IS in the process of being updated both on their website and in the directions, a complete revamp. We've used them on over 100 mares of ours and clients and gotten 98% accurate results..the ones that weren't were problem mares and a bad batch of test cassettes it turned out. Let me share part of the email I received as to reason WHY their would be false positives:

We are removing the "NO FALSE POSITIVES" from our web design and packaging. Although the statement is true as to the chemistry, there are some external things that can create a false positive:

A) too much urine from the pipette into the diluent bottle,

B) not enough urine in pipette going into the diluent bottle.

C) dirty collection device - not dirt which sits on top of the membrane but bacteria or mold that might go through the membrane pores and block a signal.

Other problems.....

D) mare urine that has not been refrigerated till use or frozen. Hormones start to break down giving weaker signals

E) using warm sample and not room temp can give weaker signal.

F)Freezing temp

G) not refrigerated over time and then used will give a weak signal or inconclusive.

H) Flooding the unit can give very hard to read results. Drop, Drop, Drop....

In our situation altho our repro vet is very very good, US's are VERY expensive here and only 73% accurate on average with a vet that KNOWS what they are doing ( Univ of Va study), Blood testing is just as costly for us, and the wait time for results is agonizingly slow, and too, for us only 75% accurate on the ones we've done..so I'll stick with the urine tests ..and knowing they are working on refining it to an earlier test date and the false positive issues as well.

 

[Bonny]

I am glad they are changing the website to include the things that can cause false positive results. As of when I bought my test it was very misleading.

 

[lil hoofbeats]

I cannot believe a vet would charge so much for an ultrasound. My vet charged 45.00 for the ultrasound, and that also included the sedation. He is able to check mares as small as 27 inches. The ultrasounds do NOT lie. YOU, with you own eyes can see the fetus with a live heartbeat at 28 days. There is NO mistaking it!

We still thought that 45.00 was a bit high, so we bought our own ultrasound machine, and are doing them ourselves. The early pregnancies are the easiest to see, you can see them at 21 days gestation very easy, and some people can see them as early as 19 days(i can not though). The machine was only about 2000.00 and carried a 1 year guarentee. we have used it for 2 years now, and it has payed for itself by 3 fold. Im very happy with it. I never really trusted the blood/urine test, they were too inaccurate, too many variables, and i like to place my money on the "sure"thing.

 

[luv2ridesaddleseat]

I am in the process of becomming a distributor for the Weefoal tests as I feel so highly of them. The people that got what you are calling a "false positive", are you positive that your mares were at least 120 days in foal when you perfomed the test? Before that, the test doesn't count. I am looking to learn all I can here to answer any questions any of my customers may have in the future.

 

[Bonny]

Joyce, I didnt know how far along my mare was. I tested in January and the test was negative, which the test says you can get a false negative before 120 days not a false positive before 120 days.

The second test done in Feb was the false positive. After 3 weeks I did the US it showed no foal so did blood work, not pregnant.

After the results I have had and the explanation from the maker, I personally would have a hard time believing the results. I love the ease of the test. But If I got a test and it read positive, I wouldnt trust the results. But thats because I had a false positive, and I still dont know why. I guess If I knew why I got the false positive I would feel differently. If it was a false negative I could understand better, as it would seem that is more common than a fasle positive.

 

[luv2ridesaddleseat]

Hmmm. Bonny, I'm just trying to learn all I can about these tests, so please, I think you know me by now, I'm not trying to be a pain in the butt here. I'm also going through some questions myself with my own mare! To the point where, yesterday, I went to see a mare, bred the same week to the same stallion as my mare that is supposedly bred to and they look the same. I think what I'm wondering is, wasn't Bonny still with the stallion in December? That would make it possible, that she was bred in December and isn't even 120 days in foal yet until this month some time? OR, the positive, possibly like my mare also, may have been a pregnancy, but aborted early enough that we would never have noticed as I got a positive at 104 days. My Vet that did the ultrasound at 134 days, said the baby may have been too small for him to see. I don't think his equipment was all that great anyway. One thing is for sure. I will NEVER do a weefoal before I'm sure the mare is at least 120 days as PER THE DIRECTIONS! That was my biggest mistake! Hopefully, I will get my next test in the next couple of days, and I WILL make sure I follow the directions to the letter, and I will have my true results!

As always, I want to learn all I can with these tests!

Joyce

 

[Bonny]

Joyce, I do not think your a pain at all! I would love to know where the mistake happened with the test. Yes it is technically possible that the test was correct and Bonny aborted. Although the Vet didnt think so because it would take time for her levels to come back down in her system and would have been detected in her blood. The estradiol levels that are in the blood start developing on day 36 and can be detected at day 60 and stay high until about day 300, then start to decline. I doubt highly that the wee foal could detect as early as day 60. Especially since they claim that day 120 is recommended for testing. And I got a neg in January, 1 month before I got the positive.

I hope I made sense....

 

[luv2ridesaddleseat]

Bonny, what I'm trying to say is, When ever you did any of these tests, are you positive that Bonny was at least 120 days bred? You bought her the beginning of Jan? That means she would have to have gotten pregnant at least by the beginning of September. for you to test her in January. If she hadn't gotten pregnant by then, none of your results mean anything. If she was with a Stallion until the time you got her, it still may be too early to test her.

 

[Bonny]

Joyce I brought her home Dec 28th, 07.If it was to early to test her with the wee foal it would have yielded a false negative not a false positive.

Also the blood test was done on my owning her past 75 days.So she would have been well within the blood test range had she bred on Dec 28th before I picked her up. The blood test is valid after 60 days.

Now that is not in the wee foal range at all, but as I said that would have yielded a false negative not a false positive.

The thing is the test claims no false positives because it detects a hormone in the urine. But testing to early wouldnt pick up the hormone. It would be a false negative because it couldnt detect the hormone -yet. Do you see what I mean?

With the test coming out positive it meant it did pick up the hormone. But my point is there wasnt a hormone there in the first place. Or it would have shown in her blood work. So many things can cause a false positive, but not testing to early.

So if she was indeed pregnant and aborted her blood would have shown it.