Pedigree Analysis

    Generations

    Coefficients of Kinship, Relationship and Inbreeding 5 Generations - Dina v. d. Himmerner Heide
    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 - Dina v. d. Himmerner Heide
    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 Don v. Forst Ostenwalde and Dam Linda 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
    Linda v. Fasanenhof50.00011
    Don v. Forst Ostenwalde50.00011
    Elko v. Huntetal25.00011
    Hajo Aus Grupilinga25.00011
    Hera v. Wasserplatz25.00011
    Ilse v. Fasanenhof25.00011
    Tinka v. d. Bilsbek12.50011
    Laika v. d. Waterkant12.50011
    Etzel v. Nörderkamp12.50011
    Elch v. Hanauer Land12.50011
    Anett v. Fasanenhof12.50011
    Dax v. d. Aue12.50011
    Laura v. Poppenforst12.50011
    Basko v. Bucheneck12.50011
    Birko v. Holsatia9.370211
    Erle v. Steinroden6.25011
    Fee v. d. Kiefhornsmühle6.25011
    Bodo v. d. Hasenheide6.25011
    Ines v. d. Waterkant6.25011
    Edu v. Forstgarten6.25011
    Asra v. Eulenhof6.25011
    Artus v. d. Hasewiesen6.25011
    Aika v. Buchwald6.25011
    Bella v. d. Aue6.25011
    Alf v. Wachtelrangen6.25011
    Chico v. Borgkamp6.25011
    Natja v. d. Holzheide6.25011
    Bob v. d. Schlei6.25011
    Ria v. d. Böckelsburg6.25011
    Jerome De Wynen6.25011
    Ajax v. Klockhof6.24022
    Edda v. Haselbusch3.12011
    Nadja De Wynen3.12011
    Yalk De Wynen3.12011
    Cora v. Tannenkamp3.12011
    Dina v. Forstgarten3.12011
    Niklas De Wynen3.12011
    Cliff v. Linduri3.12011
    Cilly v. Waterkant3.12011
    Rasso v. Lönsstein3.12011
    Pitt v. d. Bärenburg3.12011
    Elvi v. Lossetal3.12011
    Olli v. d. Böckelsburg3.12011
    Gina Dankwarder Ode3.12011
    Eyko v. Arlsberg3.12011
    Olga v. Bärenhorst3.12011
    Manto v. d. Düsterbeck3.12011
    Anke v. Birkenhof3.12011
    Anka v. Jagenberg3.12011
    Anka v. Kappelbuck3.12011
    Asta v. Duewelsknapp3.12011
    Dina v. Steinroden3.12011
    Cindy v. Bärenhorst3.12011
    Ingo v. Schadwalde3.12011
    Maestro De Wynen3.12011
    Cora v. Holmesborn3.12011
    Tim v. Feuersang3.12011
    Xari v. Wolfsgrund3.12011
    Graf v. Silbersee3.12011
    Whisky v. Schwege3.12011

    Last updated Wednesday 23 November 2022 20:32 CET



    I have 🍪s