Paper I — Q6
(a) Describe molecular marker. Write in detail about different types of DNA markers alongwith their advantages and disadvantages…
(a) Describe molecular marker. Write in detail about different types of DNA markers alongwith their advantages and disadvantages. (5+15 marks) (b) Formulate an economic and balanced ration for laying hens using commonly available feed ingredients. (10 marks) (c) Describe the characteristics and production potential of indigenous cattle breeds. (10 marks) (d) Enlist different dairy development programmes of Govt. of India along with their objectives. (10 marks)
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
(a) आणविक चिह्नक की व्याख्या कीजिये । विभिन्न प्रकार के डी.एन.ए. चिह्नकों के बारे में उनके लाभ व हानि सहित विस्तार पूर्वक वर्णन कीजिये । (5+15 अंक) (b) अंडे देने वाली मुर्गियों के लिये साधारणतया उपलब्ध खाद्य पदार्थों से सस्ता एवं संतुलित आहार तैयार कीजिये । (10 अंक) (c) देशी गाय (मवेशियों) की नस्लों की विशेषताओं एवं उत्पादन क्षमता का वर्णन कीजिये । (10 अंक) (d) भारत सरकार द्वारा डेयरी विकास के लिये चलाये जा रहे विभिन्न कार्यक्रमों को उनके उद्देश्यों के साथ सूचीबद्ध कीजिये । (10 अंक)
Directive word: Describe
This question asks you to describe. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.
See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.
How this answer will be evaluated
Approach
The directive 'describe' requires detailed, systematic exposition of characteristics and features. For part (a), begin with a precise definition of molecular markers, then classify DNA markers (RFLP, RAPD, AFLP, SSR/SNP) with comparative advantages/disadvantages—allocate ~40% time here due to 20 marks. For (b), present a practical ration formulation with ingredient proportions and nutritional calculations. For (c), cover breed-wise characteristics of Gir, Sahiwal, Red Sindhi, Tharparkar, Ongole, Deoni with production parameters. For (d), chronologically list programmes from Key Village Scheme to Rashtriya Gokul Mission with specific objectives. Conclude with integrated insights on how these components synergize for livestock development.
Key points expected
- Part (a): Definition of molecular markers; detailed classification of DNA markers (RFLP, RAPD, AFLP, SSR, SNP) with principle, advantages and disadvantages for each
- Part (b): Economic ration formulation for layers with ingredient proportions (maize, soybean, DCP, shell grit, etc.), nutrient specifications (ME, CP, Ca, P, lysine, methionine), and cost optimization
- Part (c): Breed-wise description of at least 5-6 indigenous cattle breeds (Gir, Sahiwal, Red Sindhi, Tharparkar, Ongole, Deoni/Kankrej) with milk yield, fat percentage, heat tolerance, disease resistance, and adaptability traits
- Part (d): Comprehensive listing of dairy development programmes (KVS, ICDP, OFD, Operation Flood/NDDB, NDP-I, NDP-II, RGM, Gokul Gram) with year of launch and specific objectives
- Integration: Linkage between molecular markers for breed improvement, indigenous breed conservation through programmes, and nutritional optimization for economic dairy production
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demand-directive understanding | 20% | 10 | Demonstrates precise understanding of 'describe' directive—provides systematic, detailed exposition for (a) with clear definitions and classifications; for (b) shows practical formulation skills; for (c) covers breed characteristics comprehensively; for (d) lists programmes with chronological and functional clarity; no confusion between 'describe' and 'discuss' or 'evaluate' | Partially meets directive demands—defines molecular markers adequately but marker classification lacks depth; ration formulation present but missing nutrient calculations; breed description generic without production data; programmes listed but objectives blurred or incomplete | Misinterprets directive—writes essay-type narrative without systematic description; confuses 'describe' with 'critically examine'; omits key components like disadvantages in (a) or specific objectives in (d); rations unbalanced or impractical |
| Content depth & accuracy | 20% | 10 | Scientifically accurate throughout: molecular marker mechanisms correctly explained (co-dominance, polymorphism detection); DNA marker technical details precise (probe-based vs. PCR-based, reproducibility issues); ration meets BIS/ICAR standards for layers (2800 kcal ME, 16-18% CP); indigenous breed data accurate (Gir: 1800-3500 kg lactation yield, 4.7% fat); programmes correctly dated and attributed | Generally accurate with minor errors: marker classification correct but some mechanism details fuzzy; ration energy/protein levels approximate; breed milk yields rounded or slightly inflated; some programme dates or implementing agencies incorrect | Significant factual errors: confuses molecular markers with biochemical markers; DNA marker principles fundamentally wrong; ration nutritionally imbalanced or toxic (excess Ca, deficient P); breed characteristics mixed up (attributes of one breed assigned to another); programmes misidentified or objectives completely wrong |
| Structure & flow | 20% | 10 | Clear four-part structure with visible sub-headings; within (a), logical progression from definition → classification → detailed marker-wise analysis; (b) presents ration in tabular format with ingredient breakdown and nutrient summary; (c) uses breed-wise sub-sections with consistent parameter presentation; (d) chronological or thematic organization; smooth transitions between parts maintaining thematic coherence on livestock improvement | Identifiable structure but uneven: parts labeled but internal organization weak; (a) mixes marker types without clear classification principle; (b) narrative description instead of tabular formulation; (c) breeds described randomly without consistent parameter coverage; (d) programmes listed without logical grouping; some repetition across parts | Poorly structured—no clear part demarcation, examiner cannot identify where (a) ends and (b) begins; information scattered randomly; no headings or sub-headings; illogical sequencing (discussing programmes before breeds); excessive repetition; answer appears as disjointed notes rather than coherent exposition |
| Examples / case-law / data | 20% | 10 | Rich empirical grounding: for (a) cites specific applications (QTL mapping in cattle, parentage verification in Karan Fries); for (b) provides actual ingredient costs and calculates feed cost per kg or per dozen eggs; for (c) quotes precise production parameters (Sahiwal: average 2325 kg, range 1600-2750 kg; fat 4.5%); for (d) cites budgetary allocations or geographical coverage (NDP-I: 14 states, Rs. 2242 crore); mentions specific Gokul Gram locations | Some supporting data: mentions marker applications generally without specific cases; ration ingredients named but no cost analysis; breed data present but rounded or approximate; programmes mentioned with basic objectives but no quantitative indicators; lacks specific institutional or geographical references | Virtually no empirical support: molecular markers discussed abstractly without species applications; ration lacks specific ingredient quantities; breeds described with adjectives ('good milker') instead of data; programmes listed as bare names without objectives or dates; no awareness of recent developments (RGM launched 2014) |
| Conclusion & analytical edge | 20% | 10 | Synthesizes across all four parts to demonstrate integrated understanding: connects molecular markers with indigenous breed characterization and conservation; links economic nutrition to dairy development programme goals; offers forward-looking perspective on precision livestock farming, genomic selection in indigenous breeds, or climate-resilient dairy systems; demonstrates policy awareness (e.g., how RGM addresses A2 milk market potential) | Brief conclusion summarizing main points without synthesis; restates importance of each component separately; no cross-linking between molecular techniques and breed conservation, or between nutrition and programme implementation; generic closing statement about livestock sector importance | No conclusion or abrupt ending; conclusion merely repeats introduction; completely misses opportunity to integrate parts; contains new information in conclusion; or writes irrelevant philosophical essay on animal welfare unrelated to question components |
Practice this exact question
Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.
Evaluate my answer →More from Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Science 2021 Paper I
- Q3 (a) Describe causes of different types of anoestrus in dairy cows and suggest their remed…
- Q4 (a) Differentiate between the following: (i) Endocrine and Exocrine glands. (4 marks) (ii…
- Q5 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Mention the pattern of crop-r…
- Q6 (a) Describe molecular marker. Write in detail about different types of DNA markers along…
- Q7 (a) Describe the procedure for calculating the economics of milk production in commercial…
- Q8 (a) Describe the methods of estimating inbreeding coefficient and breeding value of anima…