Pedigree Analysis

    Generations

    Coefficients of Kinship, Relationship and Inbreeding 5 Generations - Konrad v. Niederösterreich
    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 - Konrad v. Niederösterreich
    COI 5 gen: 0.781%    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 Ghino v. Leefeld and Dam Hera v. Niederösterreich
    Sire: COI 5 gen: 0.781%    too low to be reliabe    Calculate COI again

    Dam: COI 5 gen: 1.758%    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
    Hera v. Niederösterreich50.00011
    Ghino v. Leefeld50.00011
    Faust v. d. Mainauen25.00011
    Wotan v. Huntetal25.00011
    Nena v. d. Werlacke25.00011
    Tessa v. Wasserplatz25.00011
    Hanno v. Lönsstein15.620211
    Arko v. Zaunmoos12.50011
    Quendy v. Huntetal12.50011
    Bara v.d. Mainauen12.50011
    Fella v. Neuenkämpen12.50011
    Dixie v. Wasserplatz12.50011
    Dax v. Forst Ostenwalde12.50011
    Hanno v. Emsdeich12.50011
    Laura v. Poppenforst9.370211
    Debby v. Emsdeich6.25011
    Elko v. Huntetal6.25011
    Maika v. Wiken6.25011
    Aron v. Averbeck6.25011
    Xena v. Linduri6.25011
    Dina v. Neuenkämpen6.25011
    Bautz v. d. Leda6.25011
    Gera v. Lönsstein6.25011
    Hajo Aus Grupilinga6.25011
    Achill v.d. Krakequelle6.25011
    Henk v. Huntetal6.25011
    Hera v. Wasserplatz6.25011
    Centa v. Kirschenberg6.25011
    Greif v. Reitbach6.25011
    Nestor v. Wasserplatz6.25011
    Laika v. d. Waterkant6.24022
    Elch v. Hanauer Land6.24022
    Basko v. Bucheneck3.12011
    Bobby v. d. Hasenheide3.12011
    Denver v. d. Schmiede3.12011
    Arras v. Eschbach3.12011
    Tinka v. d. Bilsbek3.12011
    Quell v. Huntetal3.12011
    Fango v. Nörderkamp3.12011
    Fenja v. Rethwischer Moor3.12011
    Farah v. Hilkefeld3.12011
    Senta v. Linduri3.12011
    Anka v. Raddetal3.12011
    Hasko v. Linebrok3.12011
    Perle v. Buchheim3.12011
    Bruna v. Lönsstein3.12011
    Cliff v. Fränkischen Bauern3.12011
    Kascha v. Wasserplatz3.12011
    Graf v. Silbersee3.12011
    Natja v. d. Holzheide3.12011
    Akira v. Birkengehege3.12011
    Gitta v. d. Wallburg3.12011
    Gitta v. Lossetal3.12011
    Artus v. Elztal3.12011
    Rika v. Linduri3.12011
    Etzel v. Nörderkamp3.12011
    Jerome De Wynen3.12011
    Dean v. d. Schmiede3.12011

    Last updated Wednesday 23 November 2022 20:32 CET



    I have 🍪s