Pedigree Analysis

    Generations

    Coefficients of Kinship, Relationship and Inbreeding 5 Generations - Emmo v. Forst Ostenwalde
    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 - Emmo v. Forst Ostenwalde
    COI 5 gen: 2.246%    very low    Calculate COI again

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


    COI Calculation - Sire Enzo v. Linebrok and Dam Hera v. Wasserplatz
    Sire: COI 5 gen: 0.000%    too low to be reliabe    Calculate COI again

    Dam: COI 5 gen: 1.172%    very 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)58
    Ancestor Loss4
    Ancestor Loss in %93.55 %

    Contributing Ancestors
    AncestorBlood %# of appearances12345
    Cäsar v. Elsternkamp50.00011
    Birke Nelha50.00011
    Enzo v. Linebrok50.00011
    Hera v. Wasserplatz50.00011
    Cliff v. Linduri31.250211
    Hella v. Nörderkamp25.00011
    Bautz v. d. Leda25.00011
    Elch v. Hanauer Land25.00011
    Laura v. Poppenforst25.00011
    Nixe v. Lossetal25.00011
    Graf v. Silbersee18.750211
    Britta v. Lossetal15.620211
    Alf v. Waldhaus12.50011
    Gitta v. Lossetal12.50011
    Aika v. Buchwald12.50011
    Uhl v. Lönsstein12.50022
    Natja v. d. Holzheide12.50011
    Groll v. Huntetal12.50011
    Jerome De Wynen12.50011
    Cora v. Linebrok12.50011
    Flocke v. d. Tränke12.50022
    Bodo v. d. Hasenheide12.50011
    Boss v. Silbersee9.370211
    Dolly v. Lossetal9.370211
    Etzel v. Nörderkamp9.370211
    Fango v. Nörderkamp6.25011
    Olga v. Bärenhorst6.25011
    Quecke v. Haberland6.25011
    Cora v. Holmesborn6.25011
    Cindy v. Bärenhorst6.25011
    Nadja De Wynen6.25011
    Niklas De Wynen6.25011
    Yalk De Wynen6.25011
    Laika v. d. Waterkant6.25011
    Jenny De Wynen6.24022
    Cita v. d. Tränke6.24022
    Groll v. Reutherspfad6.24022
    Bodo v. Weserstrand6.24022
    Cent Graf v. Amelsbüren6.24022
    Natter v. Lönsstein6.24022
    Ria v. d. Böckelsburg6.24022
    Irrwisch De Wynen6.24022
    Artus v. d. Hasewiesen3.12011
    Ines v. d. Waterkant3.12011
    Enno v. Forstgarten3.12011
    Mona v. Haberland3.12011
    Asta v. Bartelskamp3.12011
    Ino v. Kreyenhorst3.12011
    Bob v. d. Schlei3.12011
    Catja v. Niddatal3.12011
    Paris v. d. Waterkant3.12011
    Unda v. Lönsstein3.12011
    Utz v. Lönsstein3.12011
    Rachel De Wynen3.12011
    Hesto v. Werlacke3.12011
    Orlo v. d. Overbecker Mühle3.12011
    Citta v. Langen Siek3.12011
    Drossel v. d. Grassel3.12011

    Last updated Wednesday 23 November 2022 20:32 CET



    I have 🍪s