Pedigree Analysis

    Generations

    Coefficients of Kinship, Relationship and Inbreeding 5 Generations - Neo 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 - Neo 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 Thor v. Buchheim and Dam Isa v. Domstein
    Sire: COI 5 gen: 1.562%    very 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)59
    Ancestor Loss3
    Ancestor Loss in %95.16 %

    Contributing Ancestors
    AncestorBlood %# of appearances12345
    Isa v. Domstein50.00011
    Thor v. Buchheim50.00011
    Vyko v. Sämmenhof25.00011
    Basko v. Aartal25.00011
    Orvett v. Buchheim25.00011
    Aimy. v. Angelsburg25.00011
    Racker v. Sämmenhof12.50011
    Locke v. Buchheim12.50011
    Bea v.d. Schorlemer'schen Rentei12.50011
    Axel v. Murner See12.50011
    Askan v. d. Klosterwiese12.50011
    Faust v. d. Mainauen12.50011
    Basca v. Mühbrooker Meer12.50011
    Aika v. Linduri12.50011
    Arras v. Eschbach9.370211
    Greif v. Reitbach9.370211
    Erle v. d. Segeberger Heide6.25011
    Horneth v. Buchheim6.25011
    Heido v. Lönsstein6.25011
    Hanno v. Emsdeich6.25011
    Senta v. Linduri6.25011
    Aron v. Averbeck6.25011
    Aloe v.d. Schorlemer'schen Rentei6.25011
    Egon v. Buchheim6.25011
    Gauner v. Stockey6.25011
    Dina v. d. Himmerner Heide6.25011
    Queen v. Sämmenhof6.25011
    Foks v. Langer-Rau6.25011
    Bara v.d. Mainauen6.25011
    Grandl De Wynen6.25011
    Cliff v. Fränkischen Bauern6.24022
    Westfalen's Chef3.12011
    Achill v.d. Krakequelle3.12011
    Alex v. Bannwald3.12011
    Rika v. Linduri3.12011
    Don v. Forst Ostenwalde3.12011
    Centa v. Kirschenberg3.12011
    Caesar v. Holdergrund3.12011
    Distel v.d. Segeberger Heide3.12011
    Xanthippe De Wynen3.12011
    Bautz v. d. Leda3.12011
    Dean v. d. Schmiede3.12011
    Hesta v. Linduri3.12011
    Arko v. d. Seewiese3.12011
    Debby v. Emsdeich3.12011
    Rivkah v. Buchheim3.12011
    Solojäger's Harras3.12011
    Lilli v. Buchheim3.12011
    Gina v. Roonstein3.12011
    Dolly v. Langer-Rau3.12011
    Unken v. Buchheim3.12011
    Gera v. Lönsstein3.12011
    Evita v. Stockey3.12011
    Arras v. Eikenloh3.12011
    Jasmin v. Buchheim3.12011
    Hajo Aus Grupilinga3.12011
    Gitta v. d. Wallburg3.12011
    Linda v. Fasanenhof3.12011
    Conrad v. Birkengehege3.12011

    Last updated Wednesday 23 November 2022 20:32 CET



    I have 🍪s