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 2025 Paper I 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Write short notes

Paper I — Q5

Write short notes on/Answer the following in about 150 words each : 10×5=50 (a) Recurrent selection and Reciprocal recurrent…

Write short notes on/Answer the following in about 150 words each : 10×5=50 (a) Recurrent selection and Reciprocal recurrent selection. 10 (b) Which are the processes preventing random assortment of genes to gametes ? Describe them. 10 (c) Discuss the feeding strategies for animals in drought situations. 10 (d) Management of rabbits as meat animals. 10 (e) Factors affecting semen quality in vivo and in vitro. 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित प्रत्येक पर लगभग 150 शब्दों में संक्षिप्त टिप्पणियाँ/उत्तर लिखिए : 10×5=50 (a) प्रत्यावर्ती (पुनरावृत्ति) चयन और पारस्परिक प्रत्यावर्ती (पुनरावृत्ति) चयन । 10 (b) जीनों से युग्मकों तक के यादृच्छिक अपव्यूहन (वर्गीकरण) को रोकने वाली प्रक्रियाएँ कौन-सी हैं ? उनका वर्णन कीजिए । 10 (c) सूखे की स्थिति में पशुओं के लिए आहार संबंधी रणनीतियों पर चर्चा कीजिए । 10 (d) मांस पशुओं के रूप में खरगोशों का प्रबंधन । 10 (e) वीर्य की गुणवत्ता को इन विवो और इन विट्रो प्रभावित करने वाले कारक । 10

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Science questions

Directive word: Write short notes

This question asks you to write short notes. 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

This multi-part question requires concise, structured responses of ~150 words each across five sub-topics. Allocate approximately 30 words per mark (150 words × 5 parts). For (a), contrast the two selection methods clearly; for (b), identify linkage and epistasis with brief descriptions; for (c), prioritize emergency feeding strategies; for (d), cover housing, breeding, and health in commercial rabbitry; for (e), distinguish in vivo (animal-level) from in vitro (laboratory-level) factors. Use bullet points or short paragraphs for clarity within each part.

Key points expected

  • (a) Recurrent selection: repeated cycles of selection and intermating of selected individuals within a population; Reciprocal recurrent selection: simultaneous improvement of two populations by using each as tester for the other, exploiting both general and specific combining ability
  • (b) Linkage (physical proximity of genes on same chromosome preventing independent assortment) and epistasis (non-allelic gene interaction masking expression); brief description of how each prevents random assortment
  • (c) Drought feeding strategies: strategic culling, use of drought-tolerant fodder (sorghum, pearl millet), urea-molasses mineral blocks, silage utilization, restricted feeding, and water conservation techniques
  • (d) Rabbit meat management: intensive housing (cages/hutches), commercial breeds (New Zealand White, California), accelerated breeding (re-mating at 14 days post-kindling), balanced pelleted diet, disease prevention (coccidiosis, pasteurellosis)
  • (e) In vivo factors: nutrition, age, season, thermal stress, disease; In vitro factors: dilution rate, extender type (egg yolk-citrate, Tris), temperature, pH, osmotic pressure, microbial contamination, cryoprotectants (glycerol)

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%10Correctly interprets 'write short notes' as requiring concise, information-dense responses; for (a) compares two distinct methods, for (b) identifies AND describes processes, for (c) 'discuss' implies evaluative coverage of strategies, for (d) focuses on meat production orientation, for (e) explicitly separates in vivo from in vitro dimensionsAddresses all parts but misinterprets one directive (e.g., lists without describing for (b), or conflates in vivo/in vivo for (e)); some parts lack appropriate depth for the directive usedFundamental misreading of directives (e.g., describes only one selection method for (a), ignores 'describe' requirement for (b), or fails to distinguish in vivo/in vitro for (e))
Content depth & accuracy20%10Demonstrates specialized knowledge: cites specific combining ability (GCA/SCA) distinction for (a); correctly identifies linkage and epistasis with mechanistic explanation for (b); names specific drought feeds (sorghum, UMMB) for (c); specifies commercial breeds and accelerated breeding intervals for (d); names specific extenders and cryoprotectants for (e)Generally accurate content but lacks specificity (e.g., 'selection methods' without GCA/SCA distinction, 'genetic processes' without naming linkage/epistasis, 'proper feeding' without naming drought-specific interventions)Significant factual errors (e.g., confusing recurrent with reciprocal recurrent selection, identifying mutation or drift instead of linkage/epistasis, generic livestock feeding not adapted to drought, pet rabbit management instead of commercial meat production)
Structure & flow20%10Clear visual separation of five parts with consistent internal structure; each 150-word segment has logical progression (definition → mechanism → application for theoretical parts; problem → strategy → outcome for applied parts); effective use of bullets or subheadings within word constraintAll five parts present but uneven structure—some well-organized, others dense paragraphs; or excessive time spent on one part causing others to be underdeveloped; transitions between parts unclearPoor part identification (missing labels), rambling structure within parts, or severe imbalance (e.g., 300 words on (a), 50 words on (e)); no internal organization within responses
Examples / case-law / data20%10Contextualizes with Indian relevance: mentions ICAR-IGFRI Jhansi for drought fodder research for (c); references CARI (Central Avian Research Institute) rabbit breeding programs for (d); cites NDRI Karnal or IVRI Izatnagar semen preservation protocols for (e); specific breed names and institutional research where applicableGeneric examples or no Indian institutional context; mentions 'some research stations' without specificity, or uses only international examples (e.g., USDA, CSIRO) without Indian relevanceNo examples, irrelevant examples (e.g., dairy cattle examples for rabbit management), or fabricated institutional references
Conclusion & analytical edge20%10Each part concludes with forward-looking or evaluative insight: for (a), notes RRS superiority for hybrid vigor exploitation; for (b), implications for breeding program design; for (c), integration with government drought relief schemes; for (d), economic viability or export potential; for (e), AI adoption challenges in field conditions—demonstrating interconnected understanding across animal breeding and managementFactual summaries without synthesis; or strong conclusion in one part but others end abruptly; no cross-referencing between theoretical genetics and practical applicationsNo concluding element in any part; purely descriptive without any evaluative or forward-looking content; fails to demonstrate why the topic matters for Indian animal husbandry

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 2025 Paper I