Pedigree Analysis

    Generations

    Coefficients of Kinship, Relationship and Inbreeding 5 Generations - Grille v. Lönsstein
    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 - Grille v. Lönsstein
    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 Bobby v. d. Hasenheide and Dam Bruna v. Lönsstein
    Sire: COI 5 gen: 0.000%    too low to be reliabe    Calculate COI again

    Dam: COI 5 gen: 0.000%    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
    Bruna v. Lönsstein50.00011
    Bobby v. d. Hasenheide50.00011
    Cita v. Winterberg25.00011
    Cliff v. Linduri25.00011
    Hektor v. d. Lindenhöhe25.00011
    Olga v. Bärenhorst25.00011
    Esko Vun'N Wischhoff12.50011
    Etzel v. Nörderkamp12.50011
    Asta v. Bartelskamp12.50011
    Ute v. Lönsstein12.50011
    Grandel v. d. Lindenhöhe12.50011
    Bill v. Bessingslust12.50011
    Paris v. d. Waterkant12.50011
    Drossel v. d. Grassel12.50011
    Bill v. Straufhain6.25011
    Cessie v. Holundereck6.25011
    Birko v. Holsatia6.25011
    Artus v. d. Hasewiesen6.25011
    Ria v. d. Böckelsburg6.25011
    Biene v. Ringofen6.25011
    Natter v. Lönsstein6.25011
    Britta v. Hasselbach6.25011
    Ines v. d. Waterkant6.25011
    Citta v. Arlsberg6.25011
    Drauf v. d. Lindenhöhe6.25011
    Astor v. d. Weide6.25011
    Gero v. Wiken6.25011
    Bodo v. Weserstrand6.25011
    Boss Holsatia6.25011
    Britta v. Bärenhorst6.25011
    Dina v. Steinroden6.24022
    Zent v. Feuersang6.24022
    Manto v. d. Düsterbeck6.24022
    Rasso v. Lönsstein3.12011
    Ajax v. Klockhof3.12011
    Arko v. Fischerwinkel3.12011
    Amsel v. Windenhof3.12011
    Golo Dankwarder Ode3.12011
    Diwa v. Kampstüh3.12011
    Donar v. Alten Zollhaus3.12011
    Asti v. Windenhof3.12011
    Pascha v. d. Binnenelbe3.12011
    Cora v. Waldsteinberg3.12011
    Assi v. Lönsstein3.12011
    Ingo v. Schadwalde3.12011
    Cilli v. Berghof3.12011
    Ulla Frankundfrei3.12011
    Dingo v. Spitzberg3.12011
    Afra v. Seggehorn3.12011
    Falk v. Waldsteinberg3.12011
    Unda v. Lönsstein3.12011
    York Frankundfrei3.12011
    Cilly v. Waterkant3.12011
    Delta v. Langen Siek3.12011
    Utz v. Lönsstein3.12011
    Enno Holsatia3.12011
    Olli v. d. Böckelsburg3.12011
    Diva v. d. Uhrau3.12011
    Cora v. Tannenkamp3.12011

    Last updated Wednesday 23 November 2022 20:32 CET



    I have 🍪s