Pedigree Analysis

    Generations

    Coefficients of Kinship, Relationship and Inbreeding 5 Generations - Hägar v. d. Segeberger Heide
    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 - Hägar v. d. Segeberger Heide
    COI 5 gen: 2.344%    very low    Calculate COI again

    Please do the new calculation only if you have entered new ancestors of this dog!


    COI Calculation - Sire Ferro v. Odisheim and Dam Granne v. d. Segeberger Heide
    Sire: COI 5 gen: 0.781%    too low to be reliabe    Calculate COI again

    Dam: COI 5 gen: 1.562%    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
    Granne v. d. Segeberger Heide50.00011
    Ferro v. Odisheim50.00011
    Bismarck v. Kreidesee25.00011
    Dax v. Forst Ostenwalde25.00011
    Distel v.d. Segeberger Heide25.00011
    Carlotta v. Odisheim25.00011
    Hajo Aus Grupilinga21.8703111
    Olga v. d. Drachheide12.50011
    Hera v. Wasserplatz12.50011
    Pom v. Minatal12.50011
    Eddy v. Riehenbusch12.50011
    Amrai v. Forstkamp12.50011
    Carlo v. Eulenhof12.50011
    Tessi v. Odisheim12.50011
    Tinka v. d. Bilsbek9.370211
    Basko v. Bucheneck9.370211
    Anka v. Kappelbuck6.25011
    Artos v. d. Schirmkiefer6.25011
    Erda v. Ruthenstrom6.25011
    Arco v. Backemeer6.25011
    Meika v. Wasserplatz6.25011
    Elsa v. Burghöft6.25011
    Benno v. Pfarrerwald6.25011
    Nostra De Wynen6.25011
    Nora v. Minatal6.25011
    Clerens v. Riedhauser Wald6.25011
    Elch v. Hanauer Land6.25011
    Laura v. Poppenforst6.25011
    Etzel v. Nörderkamp6.25011
    Lukas De Wynen3.12011
    Gilla De Wynen3.12011
    Biene v. Werhholz3.12011
    Chico v. Borgkamp3.12011
    Hakon v. Forstgarten3.12011
    Esko Vun'N Wischhoff3.12011
    Iva v. d. Drachheide3.12011
    Dixie v. Wasserplatz3.12011
    Ria v. d. Böckelsburg3.12011
    Fratz v. d. Drachheide3.12011
    Nimrod's Birko3.12011
    Katja v. Minatal3.12011
    Artus v. d. Hasewiesen3.12011
    Fee v. d. Kiefhornsmühle3.12011
    Asra v. Eulenhof3.12011
    Anke v. Keenmoor3.12011
    Cäsar v. d. Zirkelquelle3.12011
    Aika v. Buchwald3.12011
    Jerome De Wynen3.12011
    Alin v. Ruthenstrom3.12011
    Alf v. Wachtelrangen3.12011
    Erlo De Wynen3.12011
    Uri v. Bärenhorst3.12011
    Puro v. d. Faistenau3.12011
    Drossel v. Hofried3.12011
    Natja v. d. Holzheide3.12011
    Bodo v. d. Hasenheide3.12011
    Birka v. d. Hirtenburg3.12011
    Farah v. Minatal3.12011

    Last updated Wednesday 23 November 2022 20:32 CET



    I have 🍪s