Paper I — Q1
Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Explain why the digestibility trial is considered as the best method…
Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Explain why the digestibility trial is considered as the best method for evaluating the nutritive value of animal feeds. (10 marks) (b) Describe the various factors which affect hematopoiesis in animals. (10 marks) (c) Describe the electro-ejaculation technique for collection of semen in bulls with its merits and demerits. (10 marks) (d) Describe the significance and various methods for dehorning in calves. (10 marks) (e) Define inbreeding and describe the different genetic and phenotypic consequences of inbreeding. (10 marks)
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
निम्नलिखित प्रत्येक प्रश्न का उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में दीजिए : (a) पशु आहार के पोषक मूल्य के मूल्यांकन में पाचन-शक्ति परीक्षण को सबसे अच्छा तरीका क्यों माना जाता है? वर्णन कीजिए। (10 अंक) (b) पशुओं में रक्तोत्पादन क्रिया (हेमैटोपोइएसिस) को प्रभावित करने वाले विभिन्न कारकों का वर्णन कीजिए। (10 अंक) (c) साँड़ों में वीर्य एकत्र करने की विद्युत-स्खलन तकनीक का वर्णन, उसके गुण व दोषों के साथ कीजिए। (10 अंक) (d) बछड़ों में विष्णुीकरण (डीहॉर्निंग) के महत्व और विभिन्न विधियों का वर्णन कीजिए। (10 अंक) (e) अंतःप्रजनन को परिभाषित कीजिए और अंतःप्रजनन के विभिन्न आनुवंशिक और समलक्षणानुकूलन (फिनोटाइपिक) परिणामों का वर्णन कीजिए। (10 अंक)
Directive word: Explain
This question asks you to explain. 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 primary directive is 'explain' for part (a), though parts (b)-(e) require 'describe' and part (e) also requires 'define'. Allocate approximately 30 words per mark across five sub-parts: spend ~30 words on (a) explaining why digestibility trials surpass chemical analysis/protein efficiency methods; ~30 words on (b) covering nutritional, hormonal, and pathological factors affecting blood cell formation; ~30 words on (c) detailing the electro-ejaculator apparatus, procedure, and comparing merits (high sperm yield, usable in recalcitrant bulls) versus demerits (semen quality concerns, animal welfare issues); ~30 words on (d) covering significance (safety, management) and methods (chemical, hot iron, Barnes dehorner); and ~30 words on (e) defining inbreeding coefficient and detailing inbreeding depression, loss of heterosis, and phenotypic uniformity. Structure each part as: definition/key concept → mechanism/process → specific applications/merits-demerits → brief conclusion.
Key points expected
- (a) Digestibility trial: explains why it measures actual nutrient availability (TD, DCP, TDN) versus chemical composition; mentions superiority over proximate analysis and biological value methods; cites digestibility coefficients and factors affecting them
- (b) Hematopoiesis factors: nutritional (Fe, Cu, Co, B12, folate, protein), hormonal (erythropoietin, androgens, thyroxine), environmental (hypoxia, altitude), pathological (anemias, bone marrow disorders), and species differences
- (c) Electro-ejaculation: describes rectal probe with electrodes, voltage/current parameters, sequential stimulation; merits—useful in paraplegic/untamed bulls, high volume; demerits—urine contamination, thermal damage to sperm, welfare concerns, legislative restrictions
- (d) Dehorning: significance—prevent injury to handlers/herd mates, ease of transport, reduced feed space; methods—caustic paste (KOH/NaOH) in calves <2 weeks, hot iron, Barnes/guillotine dehorners, amputation saw; pain management considerations
- (e) Inbreeding: definition as mating of related individuals (F>0); genetic consequences—increased homozygosity, unmasking deleterious recessives, inbreeding depression (reduced fertility, viability, growth); phenotypic consequences—increased uniformity, prepotency, reduced genetic variation
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demand-directive understanding | 20% | 10 | Correctly interprets 'explain' for (a) with causal reasoning (why digestibility trials are superior), 'describe' for (b)-(d) with systematic process coverage, and 'define' for (e) with precise genetic terminology; maintains appropriate depth for 10-mark/150-word format without confusing directives | Partially understands directives—may describe when explanation is needed, or list without defining; some confusion between 'explain' and 'describe' across parts; adequate but not precise alignment of response structure to verb demands | Misinterprets directives—lists for 'explain', defines superficially for 'describe', or omits required definitions; treats all five parts identically regardless of verb; fails to adjust depth per directive requirement |
| Content depth & accuracy | 20% | 10 | Demonstrates specialist knowledge: for (a) cites TDN/DCP calculations and comparison with biological value; for (b) names specific micronutrients and erythropoietin mechanism; for (c) specifies voltage ranges (10-30V) and waveform types; for (d) mentions ideal age windows for each method; for (e) calculates inbreeding coefficient or cites Wright's equation | Covers main concepts adequately but lacks specificity—mentions 'minerals' without naming Fe/Cu/Co, 'electric probe' without parameters, 'related parents' without F coefficient; some technical inaccuracies or omissions in mechanism explanation | Superficial or incorrect content—confuses digestibility with palatability, hematopoiesis with hemostasis, electro-ejaculation with artificial vagina; major factual errors in describing methods or genetic consequences; vague generic statements |
| Structure & flow | 20% | 10 | Each sub-part follows distinct logical architecture: (a) claim→evidence→comparison→conclusion; (b) classified factors with clear subheadings; (c) apparatus→procedure→merits→demerits; (d) significance→methods→comparative assessment; (e) definition→genetic mechanisms→phenotypic outcomes; smooth transitions between parts | Generally organized but inconsistent—some parts well-structured, others rambling; may mix merits/demerits in (c) or methods/significance in (d); adequate paragraphing but lacks clear internal hierarchy; transitions between sub-parts abrupt | Poorly structured—no clear separation between sub-parts, random information dump, no logical progression within answers; single block text or fragmented bullet points without coherence; missing introductions or conclusions for individual parts |
| Examples / case-law / data | 20% | 10 | Incorporates specific evidence: for (a) cites ICAR/NDRI standard protocols or NRC feed tables; for (b) references specific deficiency anemias (Co deficiency in sheep, B12 in cattle); for (c) mentions Indian Field Marshal electro-ejaculator or ICAR guidelines; for (d) cites Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act provisions; for (e) cites famous inbreeding experiments (Illinois corn, cattle closed herds) or FAO/ICAR genetic conservation data | Limited specific examples—generic references to 'research shows' or 'studies indicate' without naming; may mention India/NDRI but without specific protocols; examples relevant but not precisely tied to technical points; no quantitative data | No examples, data, or institutional references; entirely theoretical treatment; examples factually wrong (e.g., citing Bt cotton for inbreeding) or irrelevant; misses opportunity to demonstrate applied knowledge expected at Mains level |
| Conclusion & analytical edge | 20% | 10 | Each sub-part concludes with evaluative synthesis: (a) acknowledges limitations of digestibility trials (cost, time, marker methods) despite superiority; (b) prioritizes factors by species/physiological state; (c) balances welfare versus practical necessity with regulatory context; (d) recommends method selection by age, breed, and welfare compliance; (e) discusses management strategies to mitigate inbreeding depression (line crossing, selection); demonstrates critical awareness of trade-offs | Brief concluding statements that summarize without evaluating; may list pros/cons without synthesis; acknowledges complexity but doesn't resolve it; standard conclusions without candidate's own analytical position; misses interconnections between sub-topics | No conclusions for individual sub-parts or generic repetitive endings ('thus it is important'); purely descriptive without any evaluative element; fails to address 'why' or 'so what' questions implicit in the directives; no demonstration of independent analytical thinking |
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 2022 Paper I
- Q1 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Explain why the digestibility…
- Q2 (a) Enlist the various feed additives and describe the merits of use of probiotics in ani…
- Q3 (a) Describe the role of chemoreceptors in regulation of respiration in avians. (15 marks…
- Q4 (a) Describe the behavioural adjustments of animals during hot weather. (20 marks) (b) De…