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 150 words Compulsory Discuss

Paper II — Q5

Discuss the following in about 150 words each: (a) Classification of zoonoses based on etiological agents (10 marks) (b)…

Discuss the following in about 150 words each: (a) Classification of zoonoses based on etiological agents (10 marks) (b) Significance of the cohort, case-control and cross-sectional epidemiological studies in animals (10 marks) (c) Various procedures for the pasteurization of market milk (10 marks) (d) Mechanism of rigor mortis in the goat carcass (10 marks) (e) Preslaughter handling and transportation of poultry (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित प्रत्येक पर लगभग 150 शब्दों में चर्चा कीजिए : (a) रोगकारक कर्मकों के आधार पर पशुजन्य रोगों का वर्गीकरण (10 अंक) (b) पशुओं में समूह, केस नियंत्रण तथा क्रॉस-सेक्शनल जानपदिक रोगविज्ञान अध्ययन का महत्व (10 अंक) (c) बाजार के दूध के पाश्चुरीकरण की विभिन्न प्रक्रियाएँ (10 अंक) (d) बकरी के शव में मृत्युज काठिन्य की क्रियाविधि (10 अंक) (e) मुर्गियों (पोल्ट्री) का वधपूर्व रख-रखाव तथा परिवहन (10 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' requires presenting comprehensive, balanced coverage of all five sub-parts with explanatory depth. Allocate approximately 30 words per mark (150 words × 5 parts), spending roughly 3 minutes per sub-part. Structure each part as: brief definition/context → key features/mechanisms → significance/application. No single overarching introduction or conclusion is needed; treat each sub-part as a standalone mini-answer with internal coherence.

Key points expected

  • (a) Zoonoses classification: Viral (rabies, influenza), Bacterial (anthrax, brucellosis), Fungal (ringworm), Parasitic (echinococcosis, toxoplasmosis), Rickettsial (Q fever), with 2-3 Indian examples per category
  • (b) Epidemiological studies: Cohort (prospective, incidence calculation, relative risk), Case-control (retrospective, odds ratio, rare diseases), Cross-sectional (prevalence surveys, herd health status), with veterinary applications
  • (c) Milk pasteurization: LTLT (63°C/30 min), HTST (72°C/15 sec), UHT (135-150°C/1-4 sec), Holder method, with FSSAI standards and phosphatase test for efficacy
  • (d) Rigor mortis mechanism: ATP depletion → actin-myosin cross-bridge formation → muscle stiffening; onset at 1-6 hours, resolution at 24-48 hours; factors affecting in goats (temperature, glycogen reserves)
  • (e) Poultry preslaughter handling: Feed withdrawal (8-12 hours), catching methods, crate density (transport stress), lairage duration, welfare considerations under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%10Demonstrates nuanced grasp of 'discuss' by providing explanatory depth across all five parts—not mere listing; for (a) explains why classification matters for control; for (b) compares study designs' utility; for (c) evaluates method suitability; for (d) explains biochemical cascade; for (e) addresses welfare-versus-efficiency tensionCovers all five parts but treats 'discuss' as enumerate or describe; provides definitions without explaining significance, mechanisms, or interconnections; one part may be underdevelopedMisinterprets directive as 'list' or 'define'; misses 1-2 sub-parts entirely; provides fragmented, superficial coverage without explanatory or evaluative element
Content depth & accuracy20%10Precise technical accuracy: for (a) correct agent-disease pairing; for (b) accurate measures (RR, OR); for (c) exact temperature-time combinations with FSSAI alignment; for (d) correct ATP-actin-myosin biochemistry; for (e) specific timeframes and regulatory complianceGenerally correct but with minor errors: vague temperature ranges, confused study design applications, incomplete rigor timeline, or generic welfare mentions without specificsMajor factual errors: wrong pasteurization temperatures, confused prospective/retrospective designs, incorrect rigor mechanism explanation, or irrelevant content
Structure & flow20%10Each 150-word segment has internal logical flow—clear opening, systematic development, purposeful closing; visual separation between (a)-(e); parallel structure across parts aids readability; no wasted wordsAll parts present but internal organization uneven; some parts read as bullet lists without sentence flow; transitions between concepts within parts are abrupt; word count skewed across partsDisorganized or merged parts; no clear demarcation between (a)-(e); rambling or repetitive; severe word imbalance (some parts 50 words, others 250)
Examples / case-law / data20%10Rich Indian specificity: for (a) Japanese encephalitis/West Nile, anthrax in Tamil Nadu, cysticercosis; for (b) NDDB field trials or Pashu Sakhi surveys; for (c) FSSAI 2011 regulations; for (d) chevon quality studies from CIRG; for (e) Indian poultry transport mortality data or PCA Act provisionsGeneric examples or only 2-3 parts have Indian/specific instances; rest use 'etc.' or 'such as' without elaboration; no regulatory or institutional referencesNo examples, or irrelevant/wrong examples; purely theoretical treatment; no connection to Indian veterinary context or regulatory framework
Conclusion & analytical edge20%10Each part closes with analytical insight: for (a) One Health integration; for (b) study selection based on disease frequency and resources; for (c) emerging non-thermal technologies; for (d) meat quality implications; for (e) economic losses from poor handling—demonstrating integrated, forward-looking veterinary perspectiveParts end with summary restatements rather than analysis; or 2-3 parts have weak/forced conclusions; no integration across sub-parts or future-oriented thinkingAbrupt endings without closure; no analytical or evaluative element; purely descriptive throughout; missing conclusions in multiple parts

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