renders below this block, the homepage copy came first, so every share of every blog post or PYQ page rendered the homepage card with og:url=upscanswercheck.com. Removed 2026-08-09; do not reintroduce. --> %sveltekit.head%
Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Science 2024 Paper I 50 marks Suggest

Paper I — Q7

(a) Suggest the strategies which should be implemented by the dairy farmers to ensure round the year supply of green fodder. (15…

(a) Suggest the strategies which should be implemented by the dairy farmers to ensure round the year supply of green fodder. (15 marks) (b) Differentiate between the following: (5×4=20 marks) (i) Quantitative and qualitative traits (ii) Sex limited and sex influenced characters (iii) Production and reproductive traits (iv) Anoestrus and repeat breeding (c) Describe in detail the advantages and disadvantages of artificial insemination in animals. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) उन रणनीतियों का सुझाव दीजिये, जिन्हें डेयरी किसानों द्वारा साल भर हरे चारे की आपूर्ति सुनिश्चित करने के लिए लागू किया जाना चाहिए। (15 अंक) (b) निम्नलिखित के बीच विभेदन कीजिये : (5×4=20 अंक) (i) मात्रात्मक एवं गुणात्मक लक्षण (ii) लिंग सीमित एवं लिंग प्रभावित लक्षण (iii) उत्पादन एवं प्रजनन लक्षण (iv) एनइस्ट्रस एवं रिपीट (बारम्बार) प्रजनन (c) पशुओं में कृत्रिम गर्भाधान के फायदे एवं नुकसान का विस्तार से वर्णन कीजिये। (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Science questions

Directive word: Suggest

This question asks you to suggest. 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 question demands a multi-part response combining 'suggest' for (a), 'differentiate' for (b), and 'describe' for (c). Allocate approximately 35-40% word/time to part (a) given its 15 marks and practical application focus; 30% to part (b) covering four distinct genetic comparisons; and 30-35% to part (c) requiring balanced treatment of AI advantages and disadvantages. Structure with clear sub-headings for each part, use tabular format for (b), and conclude with integrated insights on how fodder security, genetic improvement, and reproductive technologies collectively enhance dairy productivity.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Strategies for round-the-year green fodder supply — silage and hay preparation, fodder bank/ensiling, selection of annual and perennial fodder crops with staggered sowing, use of crop residues and agro-industrial by-products, hydroponics/fodder production, and integration with cropping systems (e.g., berseem + napier hybrid)
  • Part (b)(i): Quantitative vs qualitative traits — polygenic inheritance with continuous variation vs single gene with discrete classes; examples like milk yield vs coat colour
  • Part (b)(ii): Sex-limited vs sex-influenced characters — expressed in one sex only (milk production, horn development) vs expressed in both but differently (baldness, certain metabolic traits)
  • Part (b)(iii): Production vs reproductive traits — milk yield, growth rate, wool production vs conception rate, calving interval, service period; antagonistic correlations and selection indices
  • Part (b)(iv): Anoestrus vs repeat breeding — absence of oestrus/cyclicity vs failure to conceive after multiple services; endocrine profiles (low progesterone vs normal/inadequate luteal function) and management interventions
  • Part (c): AI advantages — disease control, genetic improvement, cost reduction, semen storage and transport, safety for dangerous bulls, record keeping; disadvantages — need for skilled technicians, heat detection challenges, conception rates variable, equipment dependency, genetic diversity concerns

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%10Correctly interprets 'suggest' in (a) as actionable, farmer-centric strategies; 'differentiate' in (b) as systematic point-wise comparison with clear distinguishing criteria; and 'describe' in (c) as detailed elaboration with both sides balanced. No conflation of directives.Partially grasps directive differences — may describe rather than suggest in (a), or list without differentiating in (b), or become one-sided in (c). Some directive confusion evident.Misinterprets directives — treats all parts as 'describe' or 'explain', fails to provide comparative framework for (b), or offers generic narrative without strategic/actionable content where required.
Content depth & accuracy20%10Demonstrates comprehensive coverage: for (a) includes 6-8 specific strategies with seasonal planning; for (b) all four comparisons with accurate genetic mechanisms and livestock examples; for (c) 6+ advantages and 5+ disadvantages with scientific rationale. No factual errors.Covers main points but with gaps — 4-5 strategies in (a), 3-4 comparisons in (b) with minor inaccuracies, 4-5 advantages/disadvantages in (c). Some scientific imprecision in genetic or reproductive physiology.Superficial treatment with significant omissions — fewer than 4 strategies, incomplete comparisons with confused definitions, limited AI discussion. Contains major errors (e.g., confusing sex-limited with sex-linked, or anoestrus with anestrus management).
Structure & flow20%10Clear tripartite structure with distinct sections for (a), (b), (c). Part (b) uses effective tables or parallel bullet points for four comparisons. Logical progression within each part — from principles to applications in (a), from definition to mechanism to example in (b), from advantages to disadvantages to synthesis in (c).Basic structure present but uneven — part (b) may lack tabular format, some comparisons run together; transitions between parts abrupt; within-part organization functional but not optimally sequenced.Poorly organized — no clear demarcation between (a), (b), (c); part (b) presented as narrative without comparative framework; disjointed flow with repetition and missing connections between concepts.
Examples / case-law / data20%10Rich with specific examples: for (a) mentions NDDB's fodder development programs, specific varieties (CO-4, Guinea grass, Berseem), and regional practices like Punjab's silage promotion; for (b) cites milk yield (Holstein-Friesian), horned/polled cattle, scurs in males, calving interval data; for (c) references NDDB's AI network, semen straw production statistics, or specific disease control outcomes.Some relevant examples but limited specificity — generic fodder crops without variety names, common breed references without data, standard AI examples without institutional or quantitative backing.Few or no concrete examples; relies entirely on abstract description. No Indian context — misses opportunities to cite ICAR, NDDB, or state agricultural university programs.
Conclusion & analytical edge20%10Synthesizes three parts into coherent vision of integrated dairy development — how fodder security enables genetic potential expression through AI and selection. Critically evaluates trade-offs (e.g., AI genetic gains vs inbreeding; intensive fodder production vs resource constraints). Forward-looking recommendations on precision livestock farming or sexed semen integration.Brief conclusion summarizing main points without true synthesis. Some attempt at integration but superficial — restates that all three are important without demonstrating interdependence.No conclusion or abrupt ending. Missing entirely, or purely descriptive summary without analytical insight. No recognition of how fodder, genetics, and reproduction interconnect in dairy systems.

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 2024 Paper I