Pedigree Analysis

    Generations

    Coefficients of Kinship, Relationship and Inbreeding 5 Generations - Mathilde v. d. Riede
    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 - Mathilde v. d. Riede
    COI 5 gen: 1.172%    very very low    Calculate COI again

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


    COI Calculation - Sire Kondy v. d. Horstbüschen and Dam Grace v. Frochtmannshof
    Sire: COI 5 gen: 0.293%    too low to be reliabe    Calculate COI again

    Dam: COI 5 gen: 0.781%    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
    Grace v. Frochtmannshof50.00011
    Kondy v. d. Horstbüschen50.00011
    Emmy v. d. Horstbüschen25.00011
    Dean v. d. Horstbüschen25.00011
    Greif v. Reitbach25.00011
    Eika v. Frochtmannshof25.00011
    Rika v. Linduri12.50011
    Aron v. Averbeck12.50011
    Eddy v. d. Pfauheck12.50011
    Moni v. Tillplatz12.50011
    Quell v. Huntetal12.50011
    Bea v. d.Manningaburg12.50011
    Arras v. Eschbach12.50011
    Quinta v. Fasanenhof12.50011
    Arco v. Backemeer9.370211
    Bautz v. d. Leda9.370211
    Amsel v. Silbergrund9.370211
    Henk v. Huntetal6.25011
    Mirco v. Linduri6.25011
    Burga v. d. Heustätte6.25011
    Juwel v. Perverberg6.25011
    Maika v. Wiken6.25011
    Gina v. Roonstein6.25011
    Bodo v. Steyerberg6.25011
    Ira v. Tillplatz6.25011
    Arras v. Eikenloh6.25011
    Aika v. d. Pfauheck6.25011
    Halla v. Linduri6.25011
    Gitta v. d. Wallburg6.25011
    Cliff v. Fränkischen Bauern6.25011
    Bonny v. Jägerkreuz3.12011
    Hakon v. Forstgarten3.12011
    Freya v. Roonstein3.12011
    Lukas v. Linduri3.12011
    Troll v. Rheinufer3.12011
    Cora v. Schäferbusch3.12011
    Alicia v. d. Heustätte3.12011
    Graf v. Silbersee3.12011
    Fango v. Nörderkamp3.12011
    Nimrod's Birko3.12011
    Jako v. Fasanenhof3.12011
    Laika v. d. Waterkant3.12011
    Ossy De Wynen3.12011
    Anke v. Keenmoor3.12011
    Cäsar v. Elsternkamp3.12011
    Gordon v. d. Hafkesdell3.12011
    Drossel v. d. Grassel3.12011
    Derry v. Erlesberg3.12011
    Anka v. Schönrain3.12011
    Fenja v. Rethwischer Moor3.12011
    Gitta v. Lossetal3.12011
    Jakob v. Sämmenhof3.12011
    Alice v. Wiebusch3.12011
    Etzel v. Nörderkamp3.12011
    Grille v. Lönsstein3.12011
    Lucie Nelha3.12011
    Hecht v. d. Königseiche3.12011
    Dana v. Tillplatz3.12011
    Elch v. Hanauer Land3.12011

    Last updated Wednesday 23 November 2022 20:32 CET



    I have 🍪s