Pedigree Analysis

    Generations

    Coefficients of Kinship, Relationship and Inbreeding 5 Generations - Balder
    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 - Balder
    COI 5 gen: 0.391%    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 Dennis De Wynen and Dam Xenia v. Fährhaus
    Sire: COI 5 gen: 0.391%    too low to be reliabe    Calculate COI again

    Dam: COI 5 gen: 2.051%    very low    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)59
    Ancestor Loss3
    Ancestor Loss in %95.16 %

    Contributing Ancestors
    AncestorBlood %# of appearances12345
    Dennis De Wynen50.00011
    Xenia v. Fährhaus50.00011
    Nadja De Wynen25.00011
    Tyres v. Fährhaus25.00011
    Senta v. Fährhaus25.00011
    Benno v. d. Haalquelle25.00011
    Jenny De Wynen12.50011
    Cäsar v. Bruckhof12.50011
    Charli v. Neuenhof12.50011
    Molly v. Fährhaus12.50011
    Bodo v. Lossetal12.50011
    Hilda v. d. Hasewiesen12.50011
    Birke Ut dat Uhlendorp12.50011
    Irrwisch De Wynen12.50011
    Whisky v. Schwege9.370211
    Carry v. d. Hasewiesen6.25011
    Amsel v. d. Leda6.25011
    Flocke v. d. Tränke6.25011
    Basko v. Neuenhof6.25011
    Ajax v. Klockhof6.25011
    Anja v. Fährhaus6.25011
    Boro v. Silbersee6.25011
    Moritz v. Sämmenhof6.25011
    Gina v. Tecklenburg6.25011
    Arrak v. Hagenpolder6.25011
    Hazel De Wynen6.25011
    Cita v. d. Donauauen6.25011
    Uhl v. Lönsstein6.25011
    Xandra v. Lönsstein6.25011
    Utz v. Lönsstein6.25011
    Bodo v. Weserstrand6.24022
    Natter v. Lönsstein6.24022
    Cora v. Tannenkamp3.12011
    Quinti v. Schwege3.12011
    Nadja v. Lönsstein3.12011
    Fani v. Breitenstein3.12011
    Immo v. d. Binnenelbe3.12011
    Astor v. Rothen Hahn3.12011
    Gabi v. Odisheim3.12011
    Citta v. Langen Siek3.12011
    Nero Z Jiv3.12011
    Cent Graf v. Amelsbüren3.12011
    Fango v. Waterkant3.12011
    Afra v. Huttfleth3.12011
    Fanny De Wynen3.12011
    Donar v. Alten Zollhaus3.12011
    Ino v. Kreyenhorst3.12011
    Ingo v. Schadwalde3.12011
    Billa v. Bentheim3.12011
    Alan Z Serikoveho Kraje3.12011
    Britta v. Fährhaus3.12011
    Bob v. d. Falloh3.12011
    Asso v. Stubben3.12011
    Dolf v. Lönsstein3.12011
    Basko v. Hesselborn3.12011
    Hella v. Sämmenhof3.12011
    Assi v. Nörderkamp3.12011
    Cita v. d. Tränke3.12011
    Mary v. Lönsstein3.12011

    Last updated Wednesday 23 November 2022 20:32 CET



    I have 🍪s