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 II 50 marks Discuss

Paper II — Q3

(a) Discuss the etiology, clinical signs, diagnosis and treatment of abomasal displacement in cows. (20 marks) (b) Describe the…

(a) Discuss the etiology, clinical signs, diagnosis and treatment of abomasal displacement in cows. (20 marks) (b) Describe the causes, clinical symptoms, diagnosis, prevention and treatment of hypomagnesemic tetany. (15 marks) (c) Justify the enhanced acceptability of indigenous livestock breeds in changing climate scenario. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) गायों में चतुर्थ आमाशयी विस्थापन के रोग कारण, नैदानिक लक्षण, रोग निदान तथा उपचार पर चर्चा कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) हाइपोमैग्नेसेमिक टेटनी के कारणों, रोग लक्षणों, निदान, रोकथाम तथा उपचार का वर्णन कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) बदलते जलवायु परिदृश्य में स्वदेशी पशुधन नस्लों की बढ़ती हुई स्वीकार्यता को सिद्ध कीजिए। (15 अंक)

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

Directive word: Discuss

This question asks you to discuss. 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 'discuss' in part (a) requires critical examination with multiple perspectives, while 'describe' in (b) demands systematic factual coverage and 'justify' in (c) needs evidence-based argumentation. Allocate approximately 40% time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, 30% each to (b) and (c). Structure with brief introductions for each sub-part, detailed body sections addressing all components of each question, and a synthesizing conclusion linking indigenous breed resilience to metabolic disease prevention.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Etiology of abomasal displacement (LDA/RDA) including high concentrate feeding, hypocalcemia, reduced abomasal motility; clinical signs of LDA (ping on left side, ketosis) vs RDA; diagnosis via auscultation-percussion, ultrasonography, rumen fluid analysis; treatment covering rolling, toggle suture, right flank omentopexy
  • Part (b): Causes of hypomagnesemic tetany (lactation tetany, grass tetany) including low Mg intake, high K fertilization, lush pasture; clinical symptoms of excitability, convulsions, downer cow; diagnosis via serum Mg <0.8 mg/dL, CSF Mg, response to therapy; prevention through Mg supplementation, soil treatment; treatment with IV calcium-magnesium borogluconate
  • Part (c): Climate resilience of indigenous breeds—thermotolerance mechanisms (sweat gland density, coat reflectance), disease resistance, feed conversion efficiency on poor quality fodder, lower methane emission; specific examples like Red Sindhi, Sahiwal, Tharparkar, Vechur, Gir; integration with NDDB programs and Rashtriya Gokul Mission
  • Comparative analysis linking metabolic diseases to intensive crossbred systems versus indigenous breed hardiness under climate stress
  • Policy integration mentioning National Livestock Mission, climate-smart livestock strategies, and One Health approach

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%10Demonstrates precise understanding of all three directives: 'discuss' for (a) shows balanced critical examination of LDA/RDA etiology with comparative analysis; 'describe' for (b) presents systematic, sequential coverage of hypomagnesemic tetany; 'justify' for (c) builds evidence-based argument with cause-effect reasoning for indigenous breed acceptabilityAddresses all three parts but treats directives generically—describes rather than discusses in (a), lists without justifying in (c), or misses the preventive emphasis in (b)Misinterprets directives—merely lists points for 'discuss', argues instead of describing in (b), or describes without justifying in (c); significant confusion between LDA and RDA presentation
Content depth & accuracy25%12.5Precise veterinary terminology throughout: specifies abomasal displacement types (LDA left-sided 80-90%, RDA right-sided), accurate serum Mg thresholds (<0.5 mg/dL severe, 0.5-0.8 mg/dL subclinical), correct surgical procedures (omentopexy vs pyloro-omentopexy), and scientifically validated indigenous breed adaptations (HSP70 gene expression, lower metabolic rate in Tharparkar)Generally accurate but lacks specificity—mentions 'displacement' without LDA/RDA distinction, gives approximate Mg levels, generic treatment descriptions, and lists indigenous breeds without explaining specific adaptive mechanismsSignificant factual errors—confuses abomasal displacement with volvulus, incorrect Mg values, dangerous treatment recommendations (oral Mg to convulsing animals), or misidentifies breed characteristics (confusing Bos indicus with Bos taurus traits)
Structure & flow20%10Clear tripartite structure with visible demarcation; each sub-part follows logical progression—etiology → clinical signs → diagnosis → treatment for (a) and (b); problem → evidence → justification for (c); smooth transitions between parts with thematic linkage (metabolic disease in high-producing crossbreds vs indigenous resilience)All three parts present but organization uneven—some sections merged or sequence disrupted (treatment before diagnosis), uneven length distribution (disproportionate focus on one part), or abrupt transitions without connecting themesPoorly organized with missing sub-parts, scrambled sequence within sections, no visible structure markers, or failure to address all components (omits prevention in b, or diagnosis in a)
Examples / case-law / data20%10Rich exemplification: for (a) cites incidence data (5-10% in postpartum dairy cows), breed predisposition (Holstein-Friesian); for (b) references seasonal patterns (spring flush tetany), geographic prevalence (Nilgiri hills); for (c) names specific breeds with quantitative traits—Vechur (87 cm height, 3L milk), Tharparkar heat tolerance coefficient, Sahiwal disease resistance data, and cites ICAR-NDRI or BAIF studiesSome examples present but limited—mentions common breeds without specific data, general references to 'high yielding cows' without breed names, or seasonal mentions without geographic specificity; lacks quantitative backingMinimal or no examples, generic statements ('indigenous breeds are hardy'), no breed names, no incidence/prevalence data, or incorrect examples (foreign breeds cited as indigenous)
Conclusion & analytical edge15%7.5Synthesizes all three parts into coherent veterinary-climate narrative: links metabolic disease susceptibility in high-producing exotic crossbreds to climate vulnerability, argues for indigenous breed conservation as preventive veterinary strategy, mentions genetic improvement programs (Gokul Grams, IVF in indigenous breeds), and projects future research directions (genomic selection for heat tolerance)Brief summary restating main points without synthesis, or separate conclusions for each part without integration; lacks forward-looking element or policy connectionNo conclusion, abrupt ending, or irrelevant conclusion; fails to connect metabolic disease management with breed selection strategy; no mention of contemporary relevance or policy framework

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 II