Pedigree Analysis

    Generations

    Coefficients of Kinship, Relationship and Inbreeding 5 Generations - Isko v. Odisheim
    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 - Isko v. Odisheim
    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 Alex v. Brunsberg and Dam Farah v. Odisheim
    Sire: COI 5 gen: 2.246%    very low    Calculate COI again

    Dam: COI 5 gen: 0.781%    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
    Farah v. Odisheim50.00011
    Alex v. Brunsberg50.00011
    Ecco v. Linebrok25.00011
    Dax v. Forst Ostenwalde25.00011
    Carlotta v. Odisheim25.00011
    Conny v. Alten Backes25.00011
    Lassy v. Huckberg12.50011
    Hera v. Wasserplatz12.50011
    Bautz v. d. Leda12.50011
    Jako v. Fasanenhof12.50011
    Hella v. Nörderkamp12.50011
    Hajo Aus Grupilinga12.50011
    Carlo v. Eulenhof12.50011
    Tessi v. Odisheim12.50011
    Graf v. Silbersee9.370211
    Etzel v. Nörderkamp9.370211
    Erda v. Ruthenstrom6.25011
    Basko v. Bucheneck6.25011
    Tinka v. d. Bilsbek6.25011
    Britta v. d. Schwarzen Brücke6.25011
    Groll v. Huntetal6.25011
    Clerens v. Riedhauser Wald6.25011
    Gitta v. Lossetal6.25011
    Orkan v. d. Königseiche6.25011
    Ilse v. Fasanenhof6.25011
    Elch v. Hanauer Land6.25011
    Laura v. Poppenforst6.25011
    Cora v. Linebrok6.25011
    Anka v. Kappelbuck6.25011
    Onko v. Tecklenburg6.25011
    Cäsar v. d. Zirkelquelle3.12011
    Esko Vun'N Wischhoff3.12011
    Alf v. Wachtelrangen3.12011
    Chico v. Borgkamp3.12011
    Dax v. d. Aue3.12011
    Bodo v. d. Hasenheide3.12011
    Uhl v. Lönsstein3.12011
    Ria v. d. Böckelsburg3.12011
    Flocke v. d. Tränke3.12011
    Fee v. d. Kiefhornsmühle3.12011
    Inka v. d. Königseiche3.12011
    Alo v. Burgstall3.12011
    Natja v. d. Holzheide3.12011
    Alin v. Ruthenstrom3.12011
    Dolly v. Lossetal3.12011
    Enno v. Forstgarten3.12011
    Laika v. d. Waterkant3.12011
    Amsel v. Fredenhof3.12011
    Fango v. Nörderkamp3.12011
    Jerome De Wynen3.12011
    Boss v. Silbersee3.12011
    Drossel v. Hofried3.12011
    Asra v. Eulenhof3.12011
    Lukas De Wynen3.12011
    Anett v. Fasanenhof3.12011
    Quecke v. Haberland3.12011
    Aika v. Buchwald3.12011
    Artus v. d. Hasewiesen3.12011
    Biene v. Werhholz3.12011
    Iris v. Huckberg3.12011

    Last updated Wednesday 23 November 2022 20:32 CET



    I have 🍪s