Pedigree Analysis

    Generations

    Coefficients of Kinship, Relationship and Inbreeding 5 Generations - Cäsar v. d. Holzheide
    This page shows the inbreeding calculations for the dog you selected or the "Test Mating" you have entered. The calculations on this page are accurate to the point that they can only be made based upon the information in the database. For more detailed calculations please make sure that as many ancestors as possible are entered to the database.

    COI Calculation - Cäsar v. d. Holzheide
    COI 5 gen: 0.000%    too low to be reliabe    Calculate COI again

    Please do the new calculation only if you have entered new ancestors of this dog!


    COI Calculation - Sire Mirco v. Linduri and Dam Maya v. Fasanenhof
    Sire: COI 5 gen: 0.000%    too low to be reliabe    Calculate COI again

    Dam: COI 5 gen: 0.000%    too low to be reliabe    Calculate COI again

    Ancestor-Loss coefficient (ALC)
    This method doesn't replace the calculation of the COI but also gives important information for the breeder. Ancestor-Loss is given when the same ancestor appears more than once in the pedigree of the dog. A 5-generations-pedigree shows 62 possible ancestors. If one of this 62 possible ancestors appears twice, the dog in question has indeed only 61 different ancestors. If 3 ancestors appear twice, this dog has indeed only 59 different ancestors. The ALC is calculated out of the nr. of the ancestors and the total nr. of possible ancestors.

    # of dogs
    Ancestors in 5 Generations (max. 62)60
    Ancestor Loss2
    Ancestor Loss in %96.77 %

    Contributing Ancestors
    AncestorBlood %# of appearances12345
    Mirco v. Linduri50.00011
    Maya v. Fasanenhof50.00011
    Ilse v. Fasanenhof25.00011
    Amsel v. Silbergrund25.00011
    Elko v. Huntetal25.00011
    Bautz v. d. Leda25.00011
    Etzel v. Nörderkamp12.50011
    Cora v. Schäferbusch12.50011
    Anett v. Fasanenhof12.50011
    Laika v. d. Waterkant12.50011
    Graf v. Silbersee12.50011
    Dax v. d. Aue12.50011
    Derry v. Erlesberg12.50011
    Gitta v. Lossetal12.50011
    Birko v. Holsatia9.370211
    Boss v. Silbersee6.25011
    Bella v. d. Aue6.25011
    Uhl v. Lönsstein6.25011
    Dolly v. Lossetal6.25011
    Faro v. d. Falkenweiden6.25011
    Gustel v. d. Kiefhornsmühle6.25011
    Erle v. Steinroden6.25011
    Locke Frankundfrei6.25011
    Flocke v. d. Tränke6.25011
    Artus v. d. Hasewiesen6.25011
    Ines v. d. Waterkant6.25011
    Ria v. d. Böckelsburg6.25011
    Edu v. Forstgarten6.25011
    Bob v. d. Schlei6.25011
    Hella v. d. Lindenhöhe6.25011
    Ajax v. Klockhof6.24022
    Cilly v. Waterkant3.12011
    Ingo v. Schadwalde3.12011
    Berry v. Nordpark3.12011
    Dina v. Forstgarten3.12011
    Bodo v. Weserstrand3.12011
    Bill v. Bessingslust3.12011
    Cindy v. d. Kiefhornsmühle3.12011
    Cent Graf v. Amelsbüren3.12011
    Tim v. Feuersang3.12011
    Cilli v. Grünen Wege3.12011
    Gina Dankwarder Ode3.12011
    Cora v. Tannenkamp3.12011
    Dona v. Jägerhalle3.12011
    Whisky v. Schwege3.12011
    Anke v. Birkenhof3.12011
    Rasso v. Lönsstein3.12011
    Britta v. Lossetal3.12011
    Alf v. Wachtelrangen3.12011
    Asta v. Duewelsknapp3.12011
    Gero Frankundfrei3.12011
    Olli v. d. Böckelsburg3.12011
    Ino v. Kreyenhorst3.12011
    Natter v. Lönsstein3.12011
    Dina v. Steinroden3.12011
    Grandel v. d. Lindenhöhe3.12011
    Manto v. d. Düsterbeck3.12011
    Cita v. d. Tränke3.12011
    Citta v. Langen Siek3.12011
    Groll v. Reutherspfad3.12011

    Last updated Wednesday 23 November 2022 20:32 CET



    I have 🍪s