Pedigree Analysis

    Generations

    Coefficients of Kinship, Relationship and Inbreeding 5 Generations - Carlo v Odisheim
    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 - Carlo v Odisheim
    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 Carlo v. Eulenhof and Dam Tessi v. Odisheim
    Sire: COI 5 gen: 0.000%    too low to be reliabe    Calculate COI again

    Dam: COI 5 gen: 1.074%    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)59
    Ancestor Loss3
    Ancestor Loss in %95.16 %

    Contributing Ancestors
    AncestorBlood %# of appearances12345
    Carlo v. Eulenhof50.00011
    Tessi v. Odisheim50.00011
    Etzel v. Nörderkamp25.00011
    Anka v. Kappelbuck25.00011
    Erda v. Ruthenstrom25.00011
    Clerens v. Riedhauser Wald25.00011
    Artus v. d. Hasewiesen12.50011
    Alin v. Ruthenstrom12.50011
    Drossel v. Hofried12.50011
    Lukas De Wynen12.50011
    Biene v. Werhholz12.50011
    Cäsar v. d. Zirkelquelle12.50011
    Esko Vun'N Wischhoff12.50011
    Ria v. d. Böckelsburg12.50011
    Gero v. Sämmenhof9.370211
    Xaver v. Lönsstein6.25011
    Hella v. d. Moorbrücke6.25011
    Ajax v. Klockhof6.25011
    Asta v. Hofried6.25011
    Hazel De Wynen6.25011
    Boro v. Silbersee6.25011
    Arrak v. Hagenpolder6.25011
    Amsel v. Rothäuser Bruch6.25011
    Ingo v. Schadwalde6.25011
    Biene v. Ringofen6.25011
    Alic v. Basbek6.25011
    Uhl v. Lönsstein6.25011
    Cora v. Tannenkamp6.25011
    Birko v. Holsatia6.25011
    Olli v. d. Böckelsburg6.25011
    Jutta v. Odisheim3.12011
    Nadja v. Lönsstein3.12011
    Manto v. d. Düsterbeck3.12011
    Fanny De Wynen3.12011
    Dolf v. Lönsstein3.12011
    Natter v. Lönsstein3.12011
    Astor v. Rothen Hahn3.12011
    Basko v. Neuenhof3.12011
    Lissi v.d Böckelsburg3.12011
    Asta v. d. Moorbrücke3.12011
    Citta v. Langen Siek3.12011
    Dina v. Steinroden3.12011
    Cilli v. Berghof3.12011
    Assi v. Nörderkamp3.12011
    Bodo v. Weserstrand3.12011
    Fango v. Waterkant3.12011
    Lux v. Fleestedt3.12011
    Immo v. d. Binnenelbe3.12011
    Zent v. Feuersang3.12011
    Ilka v. Buchenberg3.12011
    Eske v. Sämmenhof3.12011
    Bob v. d. Falloh3.12011
    Elko v. Turkenweg3.12011
    Etzel v. Sämmenhof3.12011
    Wido v. Schwege3.12011
    Cilla v. d. Holzheide3.12011
    Ino v. Kreyenhorst3.12011
    Mary v. Lönsstein3.12011
    Heike v. Sämmenhof3.12011

    Last updated Wednesday 23 November 2022 20:32 CET



    I have 🍪s