Pedigree Analysis

    Generations

    Coefficients of Kinship, Relationship and Inbreeding 5 Generations - Leo v. Domstein
    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 - Leo v. Domstein
    COI 5 gen: 0.586%    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 Leo v. Fränkischen Bauern and Dam Isa v. Domstein
    Sire: COI 5 gen: 0.684%    too low to be reliabe    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)59
    Ancestor Loss3
    Ancestor Loss in %95.16 %

    Contributing Ancestors
    AncestorBlood %# of appearances12345
    Leo v. Fränkischen Bauern50.00011
    Isa v. Domstein50.00011
    Illa v. Fränkischen Bauern25.00011
    Faust v. d. Mainauen25.00011
    Aimy. v. Angelsburg25.00011
    Vyko v. Sämmenhof25.00011
    Racker v. Sämmenhof12.50011
    Erle v. Fränkischen Bauern12.50011
    Bea v.d. Schorlemer'schen Rentei12.50011
    Westfalen's Cuno12.50011
    Askan v. d. Klosterwiese12.50011
    Hanno v. Emsdeich12.50011
    Bara v.d. Mainauen12.50011
    Aika v. Linduri12.50011
    Arras v. Eschbach9.370211
    Gauner v. Stockey6.25011
    Aron v. Averbeck6.25011
    Osca Aus Grupilinga6.25011
    Aloe v.d. Schorlemer'schen Rentei6.25011
    Dina v. d. Himmerner Heide6.25011
    Cilly v. Fränkischen Bauern6.25011
    Queen v. Sämmenhof6.25011
    Kira v. Tillplatz6.25011
    Heido v. Lönsstein6.25011
    Senta v. Linduri6.25011
    Centa v. Kirschenberg6.25011
    Greif v. Reitbach6.25011
    Achill v.d. Krakequelle6.25011
    Ivo v. Lönsstein6.25011
    Debby v. Emsdeich6.25011
    Cliff v. Fränkischen Bauern6.24022
    Bautz v. d. Leda6.24022
    Anka v. Schönrain3.12011
    Artus v. Elztal3.12011
    Perle v. Buchheim3.12011
    Jakob v. Sämmenhof3.12011
    Alex v. Bannwald3.12011
    Solojäger's Laura3.12011
    Gina v. Roonstein3.12011
    Hesta v. Linduri3.12011
    Unda v. Bärenhorst3.12011
    Akira v. Birkengehege3.12011
    Arras v. Eikenloh3.12011
    Solojäger's Harras3.12011
    Denver v. d. Schmiede3.12011
    Rika v. Linduri3.12011
    Gitta v. d. Wallburg3.12011
    Arco v. Backemeer3.12011
    Dax v. Forst Ostenwalde3.12011
    Jasmin v. Buchheim3.12011
    Gera v. Lönsstein3.12011
    Farah v. Hilkefeld3.12011
    Quell v. Huntetal3.12011
    Don v. Forst Ostenwalde3.12011
    Hajo Aus Grupilinga3.12011
    Lilli v. Buchheim3.12011
    Dana v. Tillplatz3.12011
    Linda v. Fasanenhof3.12011
    Evita v. Stockey3.12011

    Last updated Wednesday 23 November 2022 20:32 CET



    I have 🍪s