Pedigree Analysis

    Generations

    Coefficients of Kinship, Relationship and Inbreeding 5 Generations - Bonny v. Brückhof
    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 - Bonny v. Brückhof
    COI 5 gen: 0.000%    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 Esko v. Huntetal and Dam Corda v. Schatzrain
    Sire: COI 5 gen: 3.125%    very low    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
    Esko v. Huntetal50.00011
    Corda v. Schatzrain50.00011
    Alka v. Erlesberg25.00011
    Elch v. Jägerkreuz25.00011
    Etzel v. Nörderkamp25.00011
    Laika v. d. Waterkant25.00011
    Artus v. d. Hasewiesen12.50011
    Flott Frankundfrei12.50011
    Anja v. Salinenblick12.50011
    Ajax v. Klockhof12.50022
    Bob v. d. Schlei12.50011
    Ria v. d. Böckelsburg12.50011
    Hella v. d. Lindenhöhe12.50011
    Ines v. d. Waterkant12.50011
    Hecht v. d. Königseiche12.50011
    Cilly v. Waterkant6.25011
    Grandel v. d. Lindenhöhe6.25011
    Ingo v. Schadwalde6.25011
    Boss v. Silbersee6.25011
    Cora v. Lindenbauer6.25011
    Bill v. Bessingslust6.25011
    Hussa v. Rheinufer6.25011
    Gundi v. d. Königseiche6.25011
    Cora v. Tannenkamp6.25011
    Achill v. Jagello6.25011
    Anke v. Birkenhof6.25011
    Rasso v. Lönsstein6.25011
    Uhl v. Lönsstein6.25011
    Olli v. d. Böckelsburg6.25011
    Bob v. d. Falloh6.24022
    Assi v. Nörderkamp6.24022
    Janko v. Waldsteinberg3.12011
    Citta v. Langen Siek3.12011
    Basko v. Neuenhof3.12011
    Elko v. Turkenweg3.12011
    Bodo v. Weserstrand3.12011
    Bianka v. d. Königseiche3.12011
    Ino v. Kreyenhorst3.12011
    Gabi v. Lönsstein3.12011
    Citta v. Arlsberg3.12011
    Piter v. Feuersang3.12011
    Anka v. d. Vereinigung3.12011
    Eske v. Sämmenhof3.12011
    Biene v. d. Nordheide3.12011
    Alf Chamavia3.12011
    Longa Fortuna3.12011
    Corda Frankundfrei3.12011
    Aran Z Manskeho Lesa3.12011
    Cilla v. d. Holzheide3.12011
    Morro v. Feuersang3.12011
    Cessie v. Holundereck3.12011
    Wido v. Schwege3.12011
    Lissi v.d Böckelsburg3.12011
    Bona v. Hohen Geroldseck3.12011
    Drauf v. d. Lindenhöhe3.12011
    Bill v. Straufhain3.12011
    Blanka v. Holundereck3.12011
    Natter v. Lönsstein3.12011
    Cäsar v. d. Hohen Geest3.12011

    Last updated Wednesday 23 November 2022 20:32 CET



    I have 🍪s