2017 
Contents 

Contact Information.........................................................................................1 

Executive Summary..........................................................................................3 

Chapter 1: The Dairy and Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Programs................................6 

Chapter 2: USDA Activities..............................................................................16 

Chapter 3: Quantitative Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Promotion Activities by the National 

Dairy Promotion and Research Program and the National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion 

Program........................................................................................................19 

Chapter 4: Qualified State, Regional, or Importer Dairy Product Promotion, Research, or 

Nutrition Education Programs..............................................................................42 

Additional Information: 2016 Approved Contracts, National Dairy Foods Research Centers, 

Research Activities, and Audits...........................................................................44 
Contact Information 

Promotion, Research, and Planning Division 

USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service, Dairy Program 

Stop 0233, Room 2958-South 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20250-0233 

http://www.ams.usda.gov/dairy 

Oral Capps, Jr., Ph.D. 

Executive Professor, Regents Professor and Co-Director of Agribusiness, Food and 

Consumer Economics Research Center 

Texas A&M University 

Department of Agricultural Economics 

2124 TAMU 

College Station, TX 77843 

(979) 845-5911 

Email: AFCERC@tamu.edu 

http://AFCERC.tamu.edu 

National Dairy Promotion and Research Board 

Dairy Management, Inc. 

10255 West Higgins Road, Suite 900 

Rosemont, IL 60018 

(847) 803-2000 

http://www.dairy.org 

National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board 

1250 H Street, NW, Suite 950 

Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 737-0153 

http://www.milklife.com 

1 
 

 

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil 

rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions 

participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on 

race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual 

orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public 

assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any 

program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). 

Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program 

information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact 

the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or 

contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program 

information may be made available in languages other than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination 

Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at 

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter 

addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To 

request a copy of the complaint form call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter 

to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil 

Rights 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-

7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov. 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. 

Mention of a trade name or brand name does not constitute endorsement or recommendation by 

USDA over other similar products not named. 

March 2020 

2 
 

 

Executive Summary 

The enabling legislation of the dairy producer, dairy importer, and fluid milk processor 

promotion programs requires the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to submit an annual 

report to the House Committee on Agriculture and the Senate Committee on Agriculture, 

Nutrition, and Forestry. The dairy and fluid milk promotion programs are conducted under the 

Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 4501 et seq.) (Dairy Act); the Dairy 

Promotion and Research Order (7 CFR § 1150) (Dairy Order); the Fluid Milk Promotion Act of 

1990 (7 U.S.C. 6401 et seq.) (Fluid Milk Act); and the Fluid Milk Promotion Order (7 CFR § 

1160) (Fluid Milk Order), respectively. This report includes summaries of the activities for the 

dairy and fluid milk programs, including an accounting of funds collected and spent, USDA 

activities, and an independent analysis of the effectiveness of the programs. Unless otherwise 

noted, this report addresses program activities for January 1 through December 31, 2017, of the 

Dairy Promotion and Research Program and the Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Program. 

Dairy Promotion and Research Program 

Mandatory assessments collected under the Dairy Act totaled $341.4 million in 2017. The Dairy 

Board portion of assessments totaled $117.4 million and the Qualified Dairy Product Promotion, 

Research, or Nutrition Education Programs (QPs) totaled $224 million. Expenditures by the 

Dairy Board and many of the QPs are integrated through a joint process of planning and program 

implementation to work together on the national, regional, State, and local level. The Dairy 

Board continued to develop and implement programs to expand the human consumption of dairy 

products by focusing on partnerships and innovation, product positioning with consumers, and 

new places for dairy product consumption. 

During 2017, the Dairy Board launched Undeniably Dairy, a national, multi-year campaign to 

provide a platform through which the whole dairy community can engage and speak with one 

voice. The campaign was launched during June Dairy month to “reintroduce” dairy to 

consumers and showcase the nutrient-rich profile of dairy foods, as well as the dairy industry’s 

commitment to responsible production and positive local community impact. 

The Dairy Board continued its commitment to childhood health and wellness through its Fuel Up 

to Play 60 (FUTP60) program and hosted its inaugural Nourish to Flourish School Meals Summit 

(Summit). Summit participants represented 175 schools school organizations committed to 

strengthening school meals and student participation in meal programs. 

Details of the activities of the Dairy Board are presented in Chapter 1. Details of the QPs’ 

activities can be found in Chapter 4. 

Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Program 

Mandatory assessments collected under the Fluid Milk Act totaled $91.7 million in 2017. The 

Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board (Fluid Milk Board) continued to administer a generic 

fluid milk promotion and consumer education program funded by America’s fluid milk 

processors. The program is designed to educate Americans about the benefits of fluid milk, 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

increase milk consumption, and maintain and expand markets and uses for fluid milk products in 

the contiguous 48 States and the District of Columbia. The Fluid Milk Board focused on driving 

milk consumption and sales through increasing consumer relevance and trust in fluid milk 

through a renewed focus on helping build milk brands, working with industry partners, launching 

new campaigns promoting the positive attributes of milk’s nutrition, optimizing national 

partnerships, long-range planning, and a strategic roadmap to stem the decline in fluid milk 

consumption. 

During 2017, the Fluid Milk Board launched the Milk It! campaign in an effort to reclaim more 

than one-half billion gallons of lost fluid milk volume found to be attributed to kids’ decreased 

consumption over the last several years. Milk It! is a kids-only campaign focused on reminding 

kids to choose milk because of the powerful combination of great taste and nutrition, while 

reinforcing how milk helps them be their best every day. 

The Fluid Milk Board continued its partnership with the United States Olympic Committee, 

naming white milk as an official sponsor of the Olympic Games through 2020. The Fluid Milk 

Board promoted a variety of messages and ads highlighting milk’s 8 grams of protein per 8-

ounce serving. Through these messages, the Fluid Milk Board sought to educate the general 

market and Hispanic consumers on the importance of protein in the morning and milk’s essential 

nutrients. The Fluid Milk Board also continued its efforts to position chocolate milk as an 

authentic recovery beverage of choice for athletes after strenuous exercise through its Built with 

Chocolate Milk campaign. 

The Fluid Milk Order requires the Fluid Milk Board to return 80 percent of the funds received 

from California fluid milk processors to the California Milk Processor Board. Per the Fluid Milk 

Order requirement, $8.2 million was returned to the California Milk Processor Board. The 

California Milk Processor Board uses the funds to conduct its promotion activities, which 

include the got milk?® advertising campaign. The activities of the Fluid Milk Processor 

Promotion Program are presented in the Fluid Milk Board section in Chapter 1. 

USDA Activities 

USDA has oversight responsibility for the dairy and fluid milk promotion programs. The 

oversight objectives ensure the boards and QPs properly account for all program funds and 

administer the programs in accordance with the respective acts and orders and USDA guidelines 

and policies. USDA reviewed and approved all board budgets, contracts, and advertising 

materials. USDA employees attended all board and committee meetings, monitored all board 

activities, and were responsible for obtaining an independent evaluation of the programs. 

Additional USDA responsibilities include nominating and appointing board members, amending 

the orders, conducting referenda, assisting with noncompliance cases, and conducting periodic 

program management reviews. The boards reimbursed the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture 

(Secretary), as required by the Acts, for all of USDA’s costs of program oversight and for the 

independent analysis discussed in Chapter 3. Chapter 2 details USDA’s oversight activities. 

4 
 

 

Independent Analysis 

Chapter 3 describes the results of the independent econometric analysis, conducted by Texas 

A&M University, on the effectiveness of the programs implemented by the Dairy Board and the 

Fluid Milk Board. The analysis indicates that the generic fluid milk marketing activities 

sponsored by the programs have mitigated the decline of fluid milk consumption. 

In addition, Chapter 3 presents the combined effects of 2017 promotion activities on the 

consumption of fluid milk, cheese, butter, all dairy products, and dairy exports and includes 

benefit-cost ratios (BCRs) for dairy producers, dairy importers, and fluid milk processors. For 

every dollar invested in demand-enhancing activities, the BCRs for producers were as follows: 

(1) fluid milk – $3.27, (2) cheese – $3.94 and (3) butter – $15.93. The BCR for fluid milk 

processors attributed to fluid milk promotion activities is $3.04. 

5 
 

 

 

 

Chapter 1 

The Dairy and Fluid Milk Promotion Programs 

The Dairy Board and the Fluid Milk Board continued to develop and implement programs to 

expand the human consumption of fluid milk and dairy products. This chapter details the 

activities of each board. 

1. National Dairy Promotion and Research Board 

The mission of the Dairy Board is to coordinate a promotion and research program that 

maintains and expands domestic and foreign markets for fluid milk and dairy products. The 

Dairy Board is responsible for administering the Dairy Order, developing plans and programs, 

approving budgets, and monitoring the program results. 

The Secretary appoints 37 members to the Dairy Board, 36 of whom are dairy producers, each 

representing 1 of 12 geographic regions within the United States, and 1 representing dairy 

importers. The appointments are made from nominations submitted by individual applicants, 

producer organizations, importer organizations, general farm organizations, and QPs. Dairy 

Board members must be active dairy producers or dairy importers. Members serve staggered 3-

year terms, with no member serving more than two consecutive terms. 

Total Dairy Board income and expenses are provided in the annual independent audit report. 

The Dairy Board’s administrative budget continued to be within the 5-percent-of-revenue 

limitation required by the Dairy Order. An independent auditor’s report for 2017 can be found in 

the Additional Information section of this report. 

The Dairy Board has two standing committees: the Finance Committee and the Executive 

Committee. The Finance Committee consists of the Dairy Board officers and appointees named 

by the Dairy Board Chair. The Dairy Board Treasurer chairs the Finance Committee. The full 

Dairy Board serves as the Executive Committee. The other Dairy Board committees are joint 

program committees with the United Dairy Industry Association (UDIA). 

Dairy Management, Inc. (DMI), the management and staffing corporation, is a joint undertaking 

between the Dairy Board and UDIA. UDIA is a federation of 19 of the 62 QPs under the 

direction of a board of directors. The mission of DMI is to drive increased sales of and demand 

for dairy products and ingredients on behalf of dairy producers and dairy importers. DMI works 

proactively, in partnership with leaders and innovators, to increase and leverage opportunities to 

expand dairy markets. The DMI Board of Directors comprises all Dairy Board (37) and all 

UDIA (45) members. Voting is equalized between the Dairy Board and UDIA. 

DMI serves the Dairy Board and the UDIA Board and facilitates the integration of promotion 

funds through a joint process of planning and program implementation so that the programs on 

the national, regional, State, and local level work together. The Dairy Board and UDIA Board 

must separately approve the DMI budget and annual plan before these plans can be implemented. 

6 
 

 

During 2017, DMI continued to implement a national staffing structure to plan and execute the 

national programs. 

DMI funds 1- to 3-year research projects supporting marketing efforts. Six Dairy Foods 

Research Centers and one Nutrition Institute provided much of the research in 2017. 

Universities and other industry researchers throughout the United States compete for these 

research contracts. A description of the research objectives and locations can be found in the 

Additional Information section of this report. 

The joint Dairy Board and UDIA Board committee structure provides the framework for DMI 

program activities. The Dairy Board and UDIA Board Chairs assign their respective board 

members to the following four joint program committees: Research and Insights; Health and 

Wellness; Export and Ingredients; and Producer Relations and Consumer Confidence. Each 

committee elects a chair and vice-chair. The DMI Board and joint committees set program 

priorities, plan activities and projects, and evaluate results. During 2017, the Dairy Board and 

UDIA Board met jointly six times. 

DMI hosted dairy director regional planning forums across the country to review and create 

marketing strategies for the unified dairy promotion plan in 2017. These forums are designed to 

create one unified dairy promotion plan and allow opportunities for grassroots dairy producers to 

ask questions, raise concerns, and offer thoughts on the plan’s direction and development. 

The following information describes the Dairy Board and UDIA Board activities and initiatives 

implemented in 2017. 

National Dairy Council 

The National Dairy Council® http://www.nationaldairycouncil.org (NDC) is the nutrition 

marketing arm of DMI and has been the leader in dairy nutrition research, education, and 

communication for more than 100 years. NDC provides timely, scientifically sound nutrition 

information to media, physicians, dietitians, nurses, educators, consumers, and other health 

professionals. Additionally, NDC funds independent research to aid in the ongoing discovery of 

information about dairy foods’ important role in a healthy lifestyle. This research provides 

insights to industry for new dairy product innovation. 

In 2017, NDC included a “sustainable nutrition” component to its areas of focus. Sustainable 

nutrition is the intersection of agriculture, food production, nutrition, and health and 

understanding how food nourishes the population while contributing to a healthy economy and 

environment. 

Health professional outreach remained a critical component of NDC. The American Academy of 

Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Academy of Nutrition and 

Dietetics, the National Medical Association, the School Nutrition Association, and the National 

Hispanic Medical Association all continued their support and partnership with NDC. 

7 
 

As an extension of its online engagement with health professionals, and consumers, NDC 

published articles on its website and contributed to the DairyGood.org blog. Blog contributors 

include NDC registered dietitians, Ph.D. nutritionists, and communication experts, as well as 

guest nutrition and health and wellness experts. Through the articles and blog posts, NDC 

provides the latest news, analysis, and opinions on dairy-related nutrition and health research. 

NDC continued its partnership with Feeding America, in 2017, to address food insecurity. 

Limited or uncertain access to food is a major concern for 41.2 million Americans, including 13 

million children. Milk is one of the least donated items to food banks, primarily due to its 

perishability and refrigeration requirements. As part of the partnership, Feeding America set a 

goal of increasing the amount of milk in its network by 25 million pounds, which would equal an 

additional 2.9 million gallons. NDC and Feeding America have worked to develop strategies to 

increase milk and dairy product donations to food banks. The Milk2MyPlate program, which 

helps provide milk directly to food banks, delivered more than 600,000 pounds of milk in 2017. 

Additionally, the Great American Milk Drive, a partnership with the Milk Processor Education 

Program (MilkPEP) resulted in 380,000 pounds of donated milk in 2017. 

Fuel Up to Play 60 

Fuel Up to Play 60 (FUTP60) is an in-school program combining the nutrition expertise of NDC 

and the fitness expertise and star power of the National Football League (NFL) to combat 

childhood obesity and provide youth with resources necessary to improve their personal health 

and school nutrition and wellness environment. FUTP60 is based on the USDA’s Dietary 

Guidelines for Americans that recommends the consumption of low-fat and fat-free dairy foods; 

more fruits, vegetables, and whole grains; and getting 60 minutes of daily physical activity. 

During the 2017 school year, FUTP60 reached more than 38 million students in more than 

73,000 schools. Students and schools joined the program by signing up at 

www.fueluptoplay60.com. Through the enrollment, students and schools gained access to a 

School Wellness Kit containing in-school promotional materials and a “Playbook” containing 

healthy eating and physical activity strategies or “plays.” Each of the “plays” could be tailored 

to individual school health and wellness needs. Students were encouraged to form teams, with 

supervision from an adult program advisor, to carry out the “plays” and generate excitement for 

making healthy changes throughout the student body. 

School Meals Summit 

In 2017, FUTP60, along with the Urban School Food Alliance, hosted partners, students, and 

parents for its inaugural Nourish to Flourish School Meals Summit (Summit). The Urban School 

Food Alliance, created by school foodservice professionals to address the unique needs of large 

schools, includes 11 of the Nation’s largest school districts, 5,600 schools, representing 3.7 

million students and 631 million school meals annually. 

The Summit brought together over 250 participants from 175 schools and school organizations 

committed to strengthening school meals and student participation in meal programs. Using the 

Appreciative Inquiry process, Summit participants formed teams and developed 12 projects to 

8 
 

 

 

evaluate, determine best practices, and encourage improvement and participation in school 

meals. 

GenYOUth Foundation 

The GenYOUth Foundation (GenYOUth), launched in 2011 by NDC, is a nonprofit organization 

whose mission is to create a movement that will inspire youth to develop healthier eating and 

physical activity behaviors. GenYOUth works with schools, communities, and business partners 

to develop and support programs that create lasting changes in the child health and wellness 

arena, including FUTP60. 

GenYOUth continued its Adventure Capital (AdCap) program in 2017. AdCap is an 

entrepreneurship program designed to empower students to create and pitch ideas, for funding, to 

improve nutrition and physical activity in their schools and communities. Through a partnership 

with software solutions company SAP, students design projects on a digital platform and team up 

with mentors. 

U.S. Dairy Export Council 

DMI’s export enhancement and ingredient programs are implemented by the U.S. Dairy Export 

Council (USDEC). In 2017, USDEC announced the “Next 5%” plan to increase the volume of 

U.S. dairy exports from the equivalent of 15 percent of U.S. milk solids to 20 percent. One key 

part of the plan is to assist the U.S. dairy industry in becoming more customer-centric and 

demand driven. USDEC will create resources to encourage members to become consistent 

suppliers in export markets and encourage local partnership engagement. The “Next 5%” aligns 

with USDEC’s continued focus on maximizing its resources to members and aligning with a 

shifting global business environment. 

USDEC has representatives in 10 offices who provide support in identifying opportunities and 

monitoring regulatory activities: Washington, D.C.; Mexico City, Mexico; São Paulo, Brazil; 

Brussels, Belgium; Beirut, Lebanon; Tokyo, Japan; Seoul, South Korea; Hong Kong and 

Shanghai, China; Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam; and Singapore. USDEC is headquartered in 

Arlington, Virginia. 

USDEC’s ingredient program supports dairy product and nutrition research, ingredient 

applications, development, and technical assistance for the dairy, food, and beverage industries. 

Dairy, food, and beverage manufacturers use this program to locate knowledge, laboratory, and 

professional resources to help develop or improve foods using dairy ingredients. 

Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy 

In 2008, dairy producers, processors, and manufacturers entered into an unprecedented 

agreement to form the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy (Innovation Center). The goal of the 

Innovation Center is to collaborate on industry issues and accelerate industry innovation 

throughout the supply chain to increase sales in the competitive consumer marketplace. 

9 
 

 

 

 

In 2017, the Innovation Center Board of Directors continued to gather insights to better 

understand current and future issues and opportunities facing the dairy industry and set priorities. 

Based on the assessment, the Innovation Center developed a social responsibility plan with seven 

focus areas, and corresponding committees, to benefit the dairy community, its customers, and 

consumers: 

• Animal Care 

• Unified Messaging and Communications 

• Environmental Stewardship 

• Food Safety 

• Global Insights and Innovation 

• People and Community 

• Sustainable Nutrition 

The committees set goals and aligned efforts on best practices and next steps. 

Food Safety 

The Innovation Center’s Food Safety committee works across all aspects of milk production and 

processing with the goal of reducing food safety risks and ensuring dairy products are safe to 

consume. Committee members provide input on and help promote research and science-based 

food safety tools; design and coordinate food safety training; and develop guidance, assessment 

materials, and metrics for dairy processors. 

In 2017, the committee focused on artisan and farmstead cheesemakers, who represent a growing 

segment of cheese production with more than 1,000 processors in the United States. To reach 

the processors, the Innovation Center partnered with the American Cheese Society, academics, 

and retailers to launch the Safe Cheesemaking Hub (Hub). The Hub provides comprehensive 

and accessible food safety resources in English and Spanish. Additionally, an online course was 

launched in 2017 for artisan and farmstead cheesemakers to allow training to be completed from 

any location and at their own pace. More than 200 people completed the course and an 

additional 500 registered to take the course. 

Additionally, in 2017, USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture awarded the 

Innovation Center and its university partners a $400,000 grant to provide coaching sessions 

designed to help artisan and farmstead cheesemakers write their own food safety plans. The 

grant will also help to establish a network of local university and extension agents for ongoing 

support. 

Environmental Stewardship – Resource Recovery 

In 2017, the Innovation Center continued its interest in resource recovery—to extract the 

maximum practical benefits from products and generate the least amount of waste possible—to 

help prevent food waste. The Innovation Center helped to launch the Further with Food website. 

The website offers resources on food loss and waste in the United States and provides best 

practices on ways to help achieve a goal to reduce food waste by half in 2030. 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

Dairy Sustainability Alliance 

The Dairy Sustainability Alliance (Alliance), originally the Sustainability Council, continued in 

2017. The Alliance is a multi-stakeholder group with representatives from across the dairy 

community who are committed to advancing dairy sustainability and social responsibility. The 

Alliance provides a forum where member organizations can share knowledge, collaborate on 

issues affecting the dairy industry at large, and accelerate progress toward common sustainability 

goals. The Alliance seeks to improve, measure, and communicate dairy’s role in a sustainable 

food system. 

The Alliance represented over 100 member organizations in 2017, including crop and dairy 

farmers, processors, manufacturers, retailers, suppliers, and representatives from nonprofits, 

trade organizations, government, and academia. 

Industry and Image Relations 

Undeniably Dairy 

In 2017, DMI launched Undeniably Dairy, a national, multi-year, multi-dimensional campaign to 

provide a platform through which the whole dairy community can engage and speak with one 

voice and “reintroduce” dairy to consumers. The campaign aims to bring dairy’s story to life by 

showcasing the nutrient-rich profile of dairy foods, along with a farm-to-table look at the 

commitment the industry has to responsible production and positive local community impact. 

The Undeniably Dairy campaign is based on four key pillars to grow trust in relevant and 

relatable ways: 

• Nutrient-Rich—Dairy’s nutrients, including protein, help fuel the body and mind, and are 

readily available in a variety of products in the dairy aisle. 

• Locally Driven—Dairy products are fresh, locally sourced, and have a positive impact on 

local communities. 

• Real Enjoyment—Dairy is a part of so many foods people love to eat and plays a big part 

in some of the most special moments in consumers’ lives. 

• Responsibly Produced—The dairy industry uses technology, sustainable practices, and 

animal care to ensure dairy is always becoming a better product. 

The Undeniably Dairy campaign began with a wide range of content, partnerships, and 

experiences to bring the story of dairy to life for consumers. Videos on the Food Network 

garnered 59 million impressions and brought the dairy farm to consumers to hear directly from 

farmers about where food comes from and the commitments farmers have to responsible 

production. Additional partnerships included the Cooking Channel, the Kitchen, and Upworthy. 

Articles and podcasts were created to highlight people throughout the dairy community, like food 

scientists, cheesemakers, chefs, restaurateurs, and dairy farmers from across the country, to share 

their love of dairy. 

DMI reached 28 million people through its partnerships with a range of online influencers, 

including bloggers and chefs, to spotlight dairy’s role in recipes. Hundreds of onfarm events 

were hosted throughout the country to bring consumers and health and wellness experts together 

11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

to share in farm-to-table dinners to learn more about the dairy farmers and dairy’s role in the 

diet. Through its partnership with Domino’s, 7 million people, per week, saw the Undeniably 

Dairy logo and farmer messaging on pizza boxes and napkin holders nationwide. 

Through its Discovery Education partnership, fifth through eighth grade classes were introduced 

to dairy farming, especially innovations in helping to care for cows, through virtual “field trips.” 

The field trips were comprised of a 360-degree video experience and educator guides. 

DairyGood 

DMI continued www.dairygood.org as a platform in 2017, for the dairy community to 

collectively come together and tell its story using unified messaging. The website’s goal is to 

put a “face” on the dairy industry and amplify conversations taking place in other dairy and 

social media channels, such as NDC, FUTP60, and Undeniably Dairy, to demonstrate dairy’s 

commitment to food and nutrition security and to drive conversations to promote consumer 

confidence in the dairy industry and its products. 

Issues Management and Crisis Readiness 

DMI continued its Issues Management and Crisis Readiness programs in 2017. DMI staff and 

related dairy industry representatives worked to monitor and identify current and potential issues 

where the safety, benefit, or reputation of dairy farmers or dairy products may be publicly 

questioned. As needed, the network of representatives responded to media requests, trained 

dairy spokespeople, built third-party relationships within the agricultural industry, and 

distributed media alerts with key messages to maintain consistent industry-wide responses. 

Primary areas of focus included animal welfare, environment, sustainability, food safety, child 

nutrition, and modern farming practices. 

II. National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board 

The Fluid Milk Board, as authorized in the Fluid Milk Act, administers a fluid milk promotion 

and consumer education program funded by fluid milk processors. The program is designed to 

educate Americans about the benefits of fluid milk, increase milk consumption, and maintain and 

expand markets and uses for fluid milk products in the contiguous 48 States and the District of 

Columbia. The fluid milk marketing programs are research based and message focused for the 

purpose of positively changing the attitudes and purchase behavior of Americans regarding fluid 

milk. 

The Secretary appoints 20 members to the Fluid Milk Board. Fifteen members are fluid milk 

processors who each represent a separate geographical region, and five are at-large members. Of 

the five at-large members, at least three must be fluid milk processors and at least one must be 

from the general public. The members of the Fluid Milk Board serve 3-year terms and are 

eligible to be appointed to two consecutive terms. The Fluid Milk Order provides that no 

company shall be represented on the Fluid Milk Board by more than three representatives. Fluid 

Milk Board members who fill vacancies with a term of 18 months or less may serve two 

additional 3-year terms. The Milk Processor Education Program (MilkPEP) carries out the 

activities of the Fluid Milk Board. 

12 
 

 

 

The Fluid Milk Board elects four officers: Chair, Vice-Chair, Secretary, and Treasurer. Fluid 

Milk Board members are assigned by the Chair to the Fluid Milk Board’s occasion-based 

program committees. The program committees are responsible for setting program priorities, 

planning activities and projects, and evaluating results. In addition, the Fluid Milk Board has a 

Finance Committee to review all program authorization requests for funding sufficiency, the 

Fluid Milk Board’s independent financial audit, and the work of the board’s accounting firm. 

The Fluid Milk Board met three times in 2017. 

Total Fluid Milk Board income and expenses are displayed in the annual independent financial 

audit. The Fluid Milk Board’s administrative budget continued to be within the 5-percent-ofrevenue limitation required by the Fluid Milk Order. An independent auditor’s report for 2017 

can be found in the Additional Information section of this report. 

Medical Advisory Board 

The Fluid Milk Board’s Medical Advisory Board (MAB), comprised of academic, medical, and 

health care professionals with expertise relevant to the health benefits of fluid milk, continued to 

meet in 2017. The MAB provides guidance to the Fluid Milk Board’s development of key 

nutritional and health messages for consumers and health professionals. As in previous years, 

the MAB members assisted the Fluid Milk Board in continuing relationships with health 

professional organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Academy of 

Nutrition and Dietetics, and the American Heart Association. 

The MAB activities of the Fluid Milk Board also included being quoted in press materials and 

acting as spokespersons on breaking research relevant to fluid milk. The MAB continued to 

inform others in the scientific community about the strong and growing body of research 

showing the benefits of consuming milk, particularly flavored milk, after exercise for muscle 

recovery and rehydration. 

Fluid Milk Programs 

I. Milk Life Committee – General Market and Hispanic 

MilkPEP’s Milk Life consumer campaign continued to focus on fluid milk and its nutritional 

benefits, including high-quality protein and its ability to help power the potential of every day. 

The Milk Life campaign continued its efforts to improve consumers’ perceptions of milk and 

inspiring them to choose milk for themselves and their families. 

In 2017, following an aggressive focus on moms in the prior year, MilkPEP launched the Milk It! 

campaign to reclaim the loss of more than one-half billion gallons of fluid milk volume 

attributed to kids’ lowering consumption over the last several years. Milk It! is a kids-only 

campaign focused on reminding kids to choose milk because of the powerful combination of 

great taste and nutrition, all while reinforcing how milk helps them be their best every day. The 

Milk It! campaign used strategies to reach kids where they are: watching TV, online, and playing 

outside. The campaign’s television commercials aired on all major kid networks and on the Milk 

It! YouTube page, and it had over 16 million views. 

13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

MilkPEP merged the Milk It! campaign with its Team USA partnership and created a kids’ 

commercial featuring Team USA Gold Medalist Free-Skier, Maddie Bowman. MilkPEP also 

partnered with kid influencers who interviewed Olympians about how they Milk It! The content 

was used as digital advertising to reach kids where they engage online. These efforts proved to 

be one of MilkPEP’s most efficient programs, resulting in 11 million gallons of incremental milk 

sales at 1.89 gallons per marketing dollar spent from the campaign’s launch in June through the 

end of 2017. 

MilkPEP continued its Hispanic promotional efforts in 2017, as part of the industry’s outreach to 

the growing Hispanic population by striving for greater synchronization with its general market 

consumer campaign. In 2017, the Lo Que Nos Hace Fuertes (What Makes Us Strong) initiative 

continued with MilkPEP introducing Chef Lala as the Hispanic advocate for the year. Through 

advertising, public relations, and a social campaign, Chef Lala’s messages helped to further 

educate first- and second-generation Hispanics about the benefits of milk, resulting in a rise in 

milk consumption within the category. Additionally, under the Lo Que Nos Hace Fuertes 

initiative, MilkPEP released a new series of TV commercials entitled Encouragement. One of 

the commercials featured a young ice skater and carried the message of moms’ integral role in 

their children’s success. Another commercial featured the Winter Olympics theme, further 

demonstrating the integration between general market and Hispanic marketing efforts. 

MilkPEP continued its focus on the organic consumer as a loyal, real milk consumer through 

digital advertising and check-out and coupon activations. In 2017, MilkPEP partnered with an 

organic-only athlete, gold medal snowboarder Jamie Anderson, to serve as the organic athlete 

spokesperson for organic milk. Organic processors worked with Jamie Anderson as part of their 

individual marketing plans. 

In 2017, MilkPEP, continued its partnership with Feeding America and the National Dairy 

Council with the Great American Milk Drive initiative designed to deliver nutrient-rich gallons 

of milk to families who struggle with food insecurity. Milk is one of the most requested, yet 

least donated, items at America’s food banks because it is perishable. As a result, Feeding 

America is only able to provide, on average, less than 1 gallon of milk per person per year. 

MilkPEP’s Great American Milk Drive encouraged consumers across the United States to donate 

milk to families in need through online or in-store donations and increased the awareness and 

need for more milk in food banks. In 2017, the program secured 348,000 gallons of milk from 

consumer donations. To date, the program has received over 1.6 million gallons of donated milk 

and 32 million gallons of milk sales driven by efforts in over 18,700 participating retail stores 

across the country. 

II. Built with Chocolate Milk Committee 

MilkPEP’s Built with Chocolate Milk program continued to promote its low-fat chocolate milk 

message for exercise recovery to athletes in 2017, focusing promotional efforts on basketball, 

hockey, and other endurance sports. To further engage adult audiences, MilkPEP continued to 

promote the benefits of recovering and rebuilding muscles with chocolate milk after strenuous 

exercise to athletes and exercisers around the country. 

14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MilkPEP’s Built with Chocolate Milk forged a new relationship with NBA star Klay Thompson, 

shooting guard for The Golden State Warriors and 2017 NBA Champion. Through 

Klay, MilkPEP showcased how elite athletes recover with chocolate milk. Chocolate milk 

became a part of basketball season during the NBA Playoffs, Championship, and March 

Madness. The partnership included a full CBS.com take-over during March Madness during key 

professional basketball time periods, and engagement in social conversations on game days. 

In 2017, MilkPEP renewed its partnership with NHL player, father, and former Olympian Zach 

Parise. Partnering with Zach helped Built with Chocolate Milk share the recovery story 

through ice hockey, enabling the chocolate milk campaign to become part of the conversation 

and excitement around the 2018 Winter Olympic Games and professional hockey season. The 

Built with Chocolate Milk campaign also worked with Jimmy Nguyen, a long-standing member 

of Team Chocolate Milk and Olympic skeleton hopeful. The campaign created content 

demonstrating the difficulty, danger, and intensity of skeleton, and a commercial was created for 

the build-up of the Winter Olympic Games. 

In 2017, the Built with Chocolate Milk campaign continued its existing relationship with Mirinda 

(Rinny) Carfrae—the campaign’s longest standing elite athlete partnership. A three-time 

IRONMAN champion, Rinny authentically conveys the chocolate milk recovery message to the 

endurance consumer. In 2017, Rinny brought a new lens to the program as a first-time mom. 

She demonstrated to consumers how she balances motherhood, training, and recovery with the 

help of chocolate milk. In 2017, Team Chocolate Milk members remained equally as passionate 

to the campaign as the elite athletes. Overall, the endurance athletes continued to act as 

chocolate milk ambassadors nationwide, wearing branded gear on race day, engaging actively on 

social media, and educating other everyday athletes on the benefits of recovering with chocolate 

milk. 

For the 6th consecutive year, the Built with Chocolate Milk campaign continued its partnership 

with the Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathon. The race series shared chocolate milk recovery stories with 

over 238,000 runners participating in races across the country. Seventeen milk brands 

participated in the Rock ‘n’ Roll partnership, donating and sampling chocolate milk at the finish 

line in their local markets. 

In 2017, the Built with Chocolate Milk campaign maintained its partnership with USA 

Swimming as the “Official Recovery Beverage of USA Swimming.” The campaign continued to 

highlight the important role chocolate milk plays in recovery and was handed out at large meets 

across the country. As in past years, several brands participated and donated thousands of 

chocolate milk samples to swimmers at the point of sweat. 

15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 

USDA Activities 

The USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service’s (AMS) Dairy Program has oversight 

responsibilities for the Dairy Board and the Fluid Milk Board. AMS Dairy Program’s oversight 

activities include reviewing and approving the Dairy and Fluid Milk Boards’ budgets, contracts, 

investments, and marketing campaigns. Materials are monitored for conformance with 

provisions of the respective Acts and Orders, the U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and 

other legislation. The AMS Dairy Program also uses the “Guidelines for AMS Oversight of 

Commodity Research and Promotion Programs” to govern oversight and facilitate the 

application of legislative and regulatory provisions of the Acts and the Orders. 

The AMS Dairy Program ensures that the collection, accounting, auditing, and expenditures of 

promotion funds are consistent with the enabling legislation; certifies Qualified Programs; and 

provides for the evaluation of the effectiveness of both promotion programs’ advertising 

campaigns. The AMS Dairy Program assists the boards in their assessment collection, 

compliance, and enforcement actions. 

Other AMS Dairy Program responsibilities include facilitating the nomination and appointment 

process of board members, amending the Orders, conducting referenda, reviewing public and 

industry communications, and conducting periodic management reviews. AMS Dairy Program 

representatives attend full board and committee meetings and other meetings related to the 

programs. 

Dairy Promotion and Research Program Oversight 

Collections 

The Dairy Act specifies that each person making payments to a producer for milk produced in 

the United States and purchased from the producer should, in the manner prescribed by the Dairy 

Order, collect an assessment based on the number of hundredweights of milk for commercial use 

handled for the account of the producer and remit the assessment to the Dairy Board. The rate of 

assessment for dairy producers is 15 cents per hundredweight of milk for commercial use or the 

equivalent thereof, as determined by the Secretary. In addition, the rate of assessment for 

imported dairy products prescribed by the Dairy Order is 7.5 cents per hundredweight of milk for 

commercial use or the equivalent thereof, as determined by the Secretary. 

Contracts 

The Dairy Act and Dairy Order require contracts expending assessment funds be approved by the 

Secretary. During 2017, the AMS Dairy Program reviewed and approved 349 Dairy Board and 

DMI agreements, amendments, and annual plans. During 2017, DMI retained the certified 

public accounting firm of Ernst & Young to audit the records of the following contractors: 

Domino’s National Advertising Fund, Inc.; Information Resources, Inc.; PR Consultants 

Limited; University of Illinois; and Watson Green, LLC. No material exceptions were found. 

16 
 

 

USDA Foreign Agricultural Service 

The Secretary has delegated oversight responsibility for all foreign market development 

activities outside the United States to USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) (7 CFR 

2.43(a)(24)). FAS reviews the USDEC foreign market development plan and related contracts. 

The AMS Dairy Program also reviews USDEC contracts to ensure conformance with the Dairy 

Act, Dairy Order, and with established USDA policies. In 2017, the AMS Dairy Program 

reviewed and approved 141 USDEC agreements, amendments, and annual plans. 

Organic Exemption 

On December 31, 2015, a final rule was published, with an effective date of February 29, 2016, 

to amend the organic exemption regulations to allow persons who produce, handle, market, 

process, manufacture, feed, or import “organic” and “100 percent organic” products to be exempt 

from paying assessments associated with commodity promotion programs administered by AMS, 

regardless of whether the person requesting the exemption also produces nonorganic products 

(80 FR 82005, published December 31, 2015). In States having mandatory assessment laws, 

organic dairy producers are exempt only from the Federal assessment. Organic producers are 

still responsible for the remittance of State assessments. In 2017, the amount of exempted 

assessments was $1,377,000. The Dairy Order requires organic producers to re-apply annually 

to continue to receive the exemption. 

USDA Dairy Promotion and Research Program Expenses 

Per the Dairy Board’s enabling legislation, the Dairy Board reimburses the AMS Dairy Program 

for the cost of administrative oversight and compliance audit activities. In 2017, the AMS Dairy 

Program’s oversight expenses totaled $663,765, and the Federal Milk Market Administrators 

incurred $231,415 in expenses for verification audits conducted on behalf of the Dairy Board. 

Qualified Programs 

Qualified Programs are State, regional, or importer organizations conducting dairy product 

promotion, research, or nutrition education programs, authorized by Federal or State law, or were 

active programs prior to the Dairy Act. In 2017, the AMS Dairy Program reviewed applications 

for continued qualification from 62 Qualified Programs. A list of Qualified Programs is 

provided in Chapter 4. Consistent with its responsibility for monitoring the Qualified Programs, 

the AMS Dairy Program obtained and reviewed income and expenditure data from each 

Qualified Program, and data reported are included in aggregate for 2017 in Chapter 4. 

National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board Oversight 

Program Development 

The Fluid Milk Board contracted with the Interpublic Group Agencies of Foote, Cone & Belding 

Worldwide, Inc.; Campbell-Ewald and CMGRP, Inc., d/b/a Weber Shandwick to develop 

17 
 

 

programs for advertising, promotion, and consumer education in connection with the national 

fluid milk campaign. 

Collections 

The Fluid Milk Act specifies each fluid milk processor shall pay an assessment on each unit of 

fluid milk product processed and marketed commercially in consumer-type packages. The 

current rate of assessment is 20 cents per hundredweight of fluid milk products marketed. 

Contracts 

The Fluid Milk Act and Fluid Milk Order require budgets and contracts expending assessments 

be approved by the Secretary. During 2017, the AMS Dairy Program approved 87 Fluid Milk 

Board agreements, amendments, and annual plans. The Fluid Milk Board retained the certified 

public accounting firm of Snyder, Cohn, Collyer, Hamilton & Associates, P.C. (Snyder Cohn), in 

2017 to audit the records of: Foote, Cone & Belding Worldwide, Inc., Campbell-Ewald, and 

CMGRP, Inc. d/b/a Weber Shandwick. No material exceptions were found. 

Organic Exemption 

On December 31, 2015, a final rule was published, with an effective date of February 29, 2016, 

to amend the organic exemption regulations to allow persons that produce, handle, market, 

process, manufacture, feed, or import “organic” and “100 percent organic” products to be exempt 

from paying assessments associated with commodity promotion programs administered by AMS, 

regardless of whether the person requesting the exemption also produces nonorganic products 

(80 FR 82005, published December 31, 2015). In 2017, the amount of exempted fluid milk 

assessments was approximately $3,200,000. The Fluid Milk Order requires organic fluid milk 

processors to re-apply annually to continue to receive the exemption. 

USDA Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Program Expenses 

Per the Fluid Milk Act, the Fluid Milk Board reimburses the AMS Dairy Program for the cost of 

administrative oversight and compliance audit activities. In 2017, the AMS Dairy Program’s 

oversight expenses totaled $481,950, and the Federal Milk Market Administrators incurred 

$117,974 in expenses for verification audits conducted on behalf of the Fluid Milk Board. 

18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3 

Quantitative Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Promotion Activities by the 

National Dairy Promotion and Research Program and the National Fluid 

Milk Processor Promotion Program – 2017 Activities 

Introduction 

The Dairy Act and the Fluid Milk Act require an annual independent analysis of the advertising 

and promotion programs that operate to increase consumer awareness and sales of fluid milk and 

dairy products. Texas A&M University researchers were awarded a competitive contract to 

conduct this study. This chapter is a summary of the 2017 quantitative evaluation of the 

effectiveness of the dairy and fluid milk promotion programs. Due to the prior data revisions, 

the results from the 2017 report are not comparable to previous years’ reports. 

Background on the Promotion Program 

The National Dairy Promotion and Research Program is a coordinated research and promotion 

program intended to maintain and expand domestic and foreign markets for fluid milk and dairy 

products. To fund the program, U.S. dairy producers pay a 15-cent-per-hundredweight 

assessment on milk marketing, and importers pay a 7.5-cent-per-hundredweight assessment, or 

equivalent thereof, on dairy products imported into the United States. Dairy Management Inc. 

(DMI), a management and staffing corporation, is a joint undertaking between the National 

Dairy Promotion and Research Board (Dairy Board) and the United Dairy Industry Association 

(UDIA). UDIA is a federation of 19 of the 62 Qualified Programs1 (QPs) under the direction of a 

board of directors. DMI’s mission is to drive increased sales of and demand for dairy products 

and ingredients on behalf of dairy producers and dairy importers. DMI works proactively in 

partnership with leaders and innovators to increase and apply knowledge that leverages 

opportunities to expand dairy markets. 

The National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Program, or Fluid Milk Promotion Program, 

develops and finances generic advertising programs designed to maintain and expand markets for 

fluid milk products produced in the United States. Fluid milk processors marketing more than 3 

million pounds of fluid milk per month pay a 20-cent-per-hundredweight assessment on fluid 

milk processed and marketed in consumer-type packages in the contiguous 48 States and the 

District of Columbia. The Milk Processor Education Program (MilkPEP) is the staffing 

organization that carries out the promotion programs on behalf of the Fluid Milk Promotion 

Program. 

The National Dairy Promotion and Research Program, funded by dairy producers and dairy 

importers, and the Fluid Milk Processor Promotion program, funded by fluid milk processors, are 

hereinafter referred to jointly as the National Programs. 

Objectives of the Evaluation Study 

1 Qualified Dairy Product Promotion, Research or Nutrition Educational Programs (Qualified programs or QPs) are 

State, regional, local, or importer promotion programs certified annually by the Secretary of Agriculture to receive a 

portion of the funds generated under the Dairy Research and Promotion Program. 

19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The National Programs are evaluated with the key question in mind: Have the demandenhancing activities conducted by dairy producers, importers, and fluid milk processors actually 

increased the demand for fluid milk and manufactured dairy products? 

Historically, this question has been answered through econometric studies of the relationships 

between the consumption of dairy products and promotion program demand-enhancing 

expenditures. These demand relationships are estimated in a structure that controls for the 

impacts of key market forces. Economic returns to dairy producers, importers, and fluid milk 

processors that result from marketing and promotion activities and the associated changes in 

consumption are calculated using the parameters obtained from the estimated demand models. 

The summary indicator of economic return on investment is a benefit-cost-ratio (BCR). 

The level of the BCR is often taken as an indication of the impact of a program. For example, a 

1-dollar investment that returns 5 dollars in incremental revenue generates a BCR of 5 to 1. In 

addition, due to diminishing marginal returns, the ratio between the incremental revenue 

generated and the level of funding (the BCR) declines as funding increases. Usually, metrics 

other than the BCR, such as impacts on consumption and exports, are more revealing and useful 

indicators of the magnitude of program effectiveness rather than reliance on just the BCR. 

The objectives of this report are threefold: 

1. Statistically measure the combined effects of the promotion activities of the National 

Programs on the consumption of fluid milk, cheese, butter, all dairy products, and dairy 

exports; 

2. Update and utilize a previously developed simulation model of the U.S. dairy industry to 

calculate the quantity and price effects of the National Programs in U.S. fluid milk, cheese, 

butter, and all dairy product markets, and on dairy exports and the BCRs corresponding to 

promotion in each of those markets for dairy producers and fluid milk processors; 

3. Provide a qualitative and quantitative analysis of dairy product imports and import 

assessments; and 

4. Update the benefit-cost analysis of the National Programs. 

This project covers the period of 1995 to 2017 and captures the joint efforts of DMI, MilkPEP, 

and QPs. The shares of each promotion entity of demand-enhancing expenditures over this 

period are as follows: (1) DMI — 25.61 percent; (2) MilkPEP — 24.01 percent; and (3) QPs — 

50.38 percent. 

Summary of the Findings 

The overall finding of this evaluation is that the dairy promotion under the National Programs 

has effectively increased U.S. demand (domestic and exports) for dairy products. 

The gains in profit at the farm level were far larger than the costs associated with the National 

Programs combined. The returns from the programmatic activities of producers and to fluid milk 

processors are summarized with BCRs. The BCRs are based on the demand-enhancing 

expenditures only; therefore, they do not account for certain operating expenses such as 

overhead, technical support, and industry relations. 

20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Over the period of 1995 to 2017, the BCRs expressed in terms of producer profit at the farm 

level were calculated to be $3.27 for every dollar invested in demand-enhancing activities for 

fluid milk; $3.94 for every dollar invested in demand-enhancing activities for cheese; and $15.93 

for every dollar invested in demand-enhancing activities for butter. Over the same period, the 

BCR of export promotion was $6.91 per dollar invested. On a fat and skim solids basis, a 

significant positive relationship existed between the demand for all dairy products and the 

advertising and promotion expenditures associated with the National Programs. The aggregate 

all-dairy BCR was 4.35, meaning that, on average, producer profit increased by $4.35 for each 

dollar invested in demand-enhancing activities. 

The United States imported between $3.0 billion and $3.5 billion in dairy products over the 

period 2012 to 2017. Cheese products accounted for about just over 40 percent, by value, of 

those imports. Importers of dairy products have paid assessments to the Dairy Research and 

Promotion Program since August 2011. Total import assessment funds varied between $3.41 

million and $4.76 million dollars per year between 2012 and 2017. The import assessment 

represents approximately 1 percent of the total demand-enhancing expenditures made by DMI, 

MilkPEP, and the QPs. Imported cheese levels were higher by roughly 1.2 million pounds due 

to promotion funds collected from importers. Unit values of cheese imports amounted to 

approximately $3.16 per pound on average over the period 2012 to 2017. Hence, incremental 

revenue to importers solely from cheese attributable to the import assessment (on cheese) totaled 

roughly $3.8 million. 

Since cost-of-production data are unavailable for fluid milk processors, the fluid milk processor 

BCR was calculated using the milk cost as a proxy for cost of production. The fluid milk 

processor BCR was a $3.04 for every dollar invested in demand-enhancing activities for fluid 

milk. 

DMI, MilkPEP, and QP Promotion Program Expenditures 

The expenditure data for this analysis were acquired from DMI, QPs, and MilkPEP. The 

demand-enhancing expenditures from all three entities were aggregated. 

The National Programs use advertising as well as other means to influence consumers. 

Advertising dollars are directed to media outlets including television, outdoor, print, radio, and 

the internet. Marketing activities other than advertising are directed at the retail level of the 

marketing channel or at intermediaries. The non-advertising marketing expenditures include 

health and nutrition education programs, public relations, food service and manufacturing 

programs, sales promotion programs, school milk programs, school marketing activities, retail 

programs, child nutrition and fitness initiatives, and single-serve milk promotion. 

Certain promotion expenditures are not directed at the retail level of the marketing channel; these 

types of expenditures include crisis management, trade service communications, and strategic 

research activities. Because their intent is to directly increase or support sales of dairy products, 

these expenditures are classified as demand-enhancing expenditures. Expenditures for overhead, 

technical support, and industry relations are excluded from this analysis because they are not 

primarily related to demand-enhancing efforts. 

Over the past several years, the DMI Board of Directors changed its marketing strategies to focus 

21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

more on partnerships within the dairy industry to increase demand for fluid milk, manufactured 

dairy products, and dairy ingredients. Currently, DMI’s strategies include the following: (1) 

working with and through specific partners to achieve sustainable, category-level sales impacts; 

(2) attracting partner co-investment to fund demand-enhancing efforts; and (3) maximizing 

resources and impacts in increasingly competitive markets. These efforts include co-developing 

marketing information, research, business models, and best practices that can be used by the 

industry to increase sales of fluid milk and dairy products. 

Annual promotion program expenditures made by DMI, MilkPEP, and QPs over the period 1995 

to 2017 are depicted in Table 3-1 and in Figure 3-1. On average, slightly more than $365 million 

in total were spent annually by the respective entities over this period and between $400 million 

and $415 million since 2013. 

The data associated with the demand-enhancing activities initiated by DMI and MilkPEP are 

both available on a quarterly basis. QP data, however, are only available on an annual basis. To 

estimate quarterly data for the QPs, the seasonal nature of DMI and MilkPEP expenditure data is 

assumed to be similar to the QP expenditure data. Consequently, the seasonal factors associated 

with DMI and MilkPEP data are obtained and applied to the annual QP data to arrive at quarterly 

expenditures. The estimation of these data on a quarterly basis is important in allowing for 

sufficient observations to conduct the econometric analysis of demand for dairy products. 

Nominal seasonally adjusted, demand-enhancing expenditures by DMI, MilkPEP, and QPs for 

all dairy products (fluid and manufacturing) combined on a quarterly basis from 1995 to 2017 

are exhibited in Figure 3-2. These demand-enhancing expenditures varied from $42.7 million to 

$109.6 million per quarter, averaging $82.3 million. 

Nominal seasonally adjusted demand-enhancing expenditures for fluid milk from DMI, 

MilkPEP, and QPs on a quarterly basis from 1995 to 2017 are exhibited in Figure 3-3. Over that 

period, nominal seasonally adjusted quarterly promotion program expenditures for fluid milk 

ranged from roughly $23.9 million to $63.3 million per quarter. On average over the same 

period, nominal seasonally adjusted demand-enhancing expenditures for fluid milk were $34.6 

million per quarter. 

As exhibited in Figure 3-4, nominal seasonally adjusted demand-enhancing expenditures for 

cheese ranged from $12.8 million to $27.7 million between 1995 and 2004, averaging $21.8 

million per quarter. From 2005 to the third quarter of 2008, promotion expenditures associated 

with cheese were much smaller compared to the period of 1995 to 2004. On average, 

expenditures on cheese marketing and promotion were $12.0 million during this period. From 

the fourth quarter of 2008 through the end of 2017, nominal quarterly expenditures on cheese 

marketing and promotion activities ranged from $8.1 million to $17.1 million, averaging $11.9 

million per quarter. Over that period, nominal seasonally adjusted demand-enhancing 

expenditures for cheese averaged $16.2 million per quarter. 

22 
 

 

 

Table 3-1. Annual Dairy Management, Inc. (DMI), Milk Processor Education Program 

(MilkPEP), and Qualified Program (QP) Promotion Program Expenditures, 1995 to 20171 

Year DMI MilkPEP QPs Total 

1995 $88,105 $43,654 $160,832 $292,592 

1996 $99,674 $38,690 $159,600 $297,964 

1997 $93,859 $101,850 $160,379 $356,088 

1998 $97,570 $100,901 $158,348 $356,819 

1999 $96,010 $97,023 $161,161 $354,194 

2000 $94,260 $95,158 $169,654 $359,072 

2001 $102,835 $95,112 $169,967 $367,914 

2002 $98,752 $93,511 $174,857 $367,120 

2003 $94,256 $95,688 $165,973 $355,917 

2004* $90,171 $97,167 $172,667 $360,005 

2005 $83,484 $83,527 $175,081 $342,092 

2006 $73,067 $92,029 $182,443 $347,539 

2007 $74,623 $101,125 $190,289 $366,037 

2008* $99,051 $97,003 $181,092 $377,146 

2009* $94,071 $95,109 $187,992 $377,172 

2010* $87,512 $98,316 $166,459 $352,287 

2011* $88,456 $91,289 $214,763 $394,508 

2012* $82,360 $91,893 $216,484 $390,737 

2013* $93,184 $89,633 $216,844 $399,611 

2014* $102,728 $83,426 $211,919 $397,623 

2015 $107,133 $83,098 $219,660 $409,891 

2016 $102,712 $84,858 $227,834 $415,404 

2017 $110,005 $82,910 $218,548 $411,462 1

Thousands of dollars. 

*Qualified Program data previously revised. 

Source: Data from DMI, MilkPEP, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

23 
 

 

 

Figure 3-1. Annual Dairy Management, Inc. (DMI), Milk Processor Education Program 

(MilkPEP), and Qualified Program (QP) Promotion Expenditures, 1995 to 2017 

$250,000 

$200,000 

$150,000 

$50,000 

$100,000 

$0 

DMI MilkPEP QPs 

Source: Data from DMI, MilkPEP, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

QPs = Qualified Programs 

Figure 3-2. Quarterly All Dairy Product Promotion Expenditures (Nominal Seasonally 

Adjusted) by Dairy Management, Inc. (DMI), Milk Processor Education Program (MilkPEP), 

and Qualified Promotion (QPs), 1995 to 2017* 

$120,000,000 

$60,000,000 

$80,000,000 

$100,000,000 

$40,000,000 

$20,000,000 

$0 

*

Includes expenditures for advertising, promotion, dairy foods and nutrition research, nutrition education, and 

market and economic research. 

Source: Data from DMI, MilkPEP, and QPs. Calculations by the authors. 

24 
 

 

 

Figure 3-3. Quarterly Fluid Milk Promotion Expenditures (Nominal Seasonally Adjusted) by 

Dairy Management, Inc. (DMI), Milk Processor Education Program (MilkPEP), and Qualified 

Programs (QPs), 1995 to 2017 

$70,000,000 

$30,000,000 

$40,000,000 

$50,000,000 

$60,000,000 

$20,000,000 

$10,000,000 

$0 

Source: Data from DMI, MilkPEP, and QPs. 

Figure 3-4. Quarterly Cheese Promotion Expenditures (Nominal Seasonally Adjusted) by Dairy 

Management, Inc. (DMI), and Qualified Programs (QPs), 1995 to 2017 

$30,000,000 

$10,000,000 

$15,000,000 

$20,000,000 

$25,000,000 

$5,000,000 

$0 

Source: Data from DMI and QPs. Calculations by the authors. 

25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

As shown in Figure 3-5, nominal seasonally adjusted demand-enhancing quarterly expenditures 

on marketing and promotion of butter ranged from close to $60,000 to $6.8 million, averaging 

slightly more than $1.3 million per quarter over the period 1995 to 2017. Marketing and 

promotion expenditures for butter are a fraction of the expenditures for fluid milk and cheese. 

Beginning in 2006, DMI transitioned from featuring milk, cheese, and butter in product-specific 

promotions to broader campaigns that relate to a number of dairy products. As a result of an 

increasing number of campaigns affecting multiple products, assessing demand enhancements 

for the aggregate of dairy products as well as within specific product classes is important. 

DMI also invests in dairy export promotion through the U.S. Dairy Export Council (USDEC). 

Nominal seasonally adjusted DMI expenditures directed to dairy export promotion on a 

quarterly basis ranged from just under $800 to approximately $5.1 million (Figure 3-6a). These 

expenditures trended upward from 1995 to 2017, averaging about $2.5 million per quarter over 

this period. As exhibited in Figure 3-6b, nominal seasonally adjusted funds awarded through 

USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) directed to exports of dairy products on a quarterly 

basis varied from just under $310,000 to about $1.8 million, averaging nearly $1.1 million per 

quarter over the period of 1997 to 2017. The funds are awarded through USDA FAS’ Foreign 

Market Development (FMD) program and the Market Access Program (MAP). The aggregate 

of DMI and FMD/MAP expenditures (nominal, seasonally adjusted) ranged from $881 to $6.6 

million per quarter, averaging $3.5 million on a quarterly basis over the same period from 1995 

to 2017 (Figure 3-6c). 

Figure 3-5. Quarterly Butter Demand-Enhancing Expenditures (Nominal Seasonally Adjusted) 

by Dairy Management, Inc. (DMI) and Qualified Programs (QPs), 1995.1 to 2017.4 

$0 

$1,000,000 

$2,000,000 

$3,000,000 

$4,000,000 

$5,000,000 

$6,000,000 

$7,000,000 

$8,000,000 

Source: Data from DMI and QPs. Calculations by the authors. 

26 
 

 

 

 

Figure 3-6a. Quarterly Dairy Product Export Expenditures (Nominal Seasonally Adjusted) by 

Dairy Management, Inc. (DMI), 1995.1 to 2017.4 

$6,000,000 

$0 

$1,000,000 

$2,000,000 

$3,000,000 

$4,000,000 

$5,000,000 

Source: Data from DMI. Calculations by the authors. 

Figure 3-6b. Quarterly Dairy Product Export Expenditures (Nominal Seasonally Adjusted) 

through the Foreign Market Development/Market Access Programs, 1997.1 to 2017.4* 

$0 

$200,000 

$400,000 

$600,000 

$800,000 

$1,000,000 

$1,200,000 

$1,400,000 

$1,600,000 

$1,800,000 

$2,000,000 

*Data were not available prior to 1997. Also, only annual data were available for 1997 and 1998. Quarterly 

interpolations were made for these years. 

Source: Data from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. Calculations by the authors. 

27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3-6c. Quarterly Aggregate Dairy Product Export Expenditures (Nominal Seasonally 

Adjusted) by Dairy Management, Inc. (DMI) and the Foreign Market Development/Market 

Access Programs, 1995.1 to 2017.4 

$7,000,000 

$0 

$1,000,000 

$2,000,000 

$3,000,000 

$4,000,000 

$5,000,000 

$6,000,000 

Source: Calculations by authors. 

The assessment that importers of dairy products have paid to the National Dairy Promotion and 

Research Program since April 1, 2011 is based on milk content as follows: 

“This rule requires importers to calculate assessments due based upon documentation 

concerning the cow’s milk solids content of the imported products. Products shall be 

assessed at the rate of $0.01327 per kilogram of cow’s milk solids.” 

(Agricultural Marketing Service, 2011, “Rules and Regulations,” Federal Register, 

Volume 76, No. 53, page 14479). 

Two-thirds of the import assessment is allocated to the National Dairy Board. The remaining 

amount was designated to be used by one of three QPs to support dairy promotion: (1) Cheese 

Importers Association of America; (2) Global Dairy Platform; and (3) the Wisconsin Milk 

Marketing Board, Inc. 

Import assessment funds totaled between $3.41 million and $4.76 million per year from 2012 to 

2017. The total funds collected declined modestly from $3.52 million to $3.41 million between 

2012 and 2014. These funds rose to $4.18 million in 2015 and $4.76 million in 2016 but 

declined to $4.25 million in 2017. The cumulative import assessment funds totaled $24.58 

million from September 2011 to December 2017. On a monthly basis, funds from the dairy 

import assessment ranged from $210,086 to $493,975, averaging $323,470 over the period of 

September 2011 to December 2017 (Figure 3-7). The import assessment averaged just over 1.0 

percent of the total demand-enhancing expenditures made by DMI, MilkPEP, and the QPs 

between 2012 and 2017. 

28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Trends in Dairy Use 

Per capita fluid milk consumption trended downward between 1995 and 2017 (Figure 3-8). The 

downward trend likely reflects changes in the frequency of fluid milk intake rather than changes 

in portions (Stewart, Dong, and Carlson, 2013). The majority of Americans born in the 1990s 

tend to consume fluid milk less often than those born in the 1970s, who in turn consume fluid 

milk less often than those born in the 1950s. U.S. milk consumption has declined roughly 25 

percent since 1975 due to changing consumption habits as well as increased competition from 

other beverages. 

Cheese consumption per capita has grown over time and exhibits seasonal patterns (Figure 3-9). 

Between 1995 and 2017, the commercial per capita disappearance of cheese ranged from 6.4 

pounds per quarter to 9.8 pounds per quarter, averaging about 7.9 pounds. 

Over the same period, per capita butter consumption grew modestly and exhibited seasonal 

patterns as well (Figure 3-10). The commercial disappearance of butter on a per capita basis 

ranged from 0.9 pounds to per quarter to 1.7 pounds per quarter, averaging slightly more than 

1.2 pounds. 

On average over 1995 to 2017, the per capita commercial disappearance of all dairy products on 

a fat basis amounted to 150 pounds per quarter, ranging from 136 pounds to 169 pounds per 

quarter (Figure 3-11). On a skim-solids basis, the per capita commercial disappearance of all dairy 

products over that same period amounted to 137 pounds per quarter, ranging from 130 pounds to 

143 pounds per quarter (Figure 3-12). 

Between 1995 and 2017, quarterly dairy exports on a fat basis averaged nearly 1,350 pounds and 

slightly more than 5,400 pounds on a skim-solids basis (Figure 3-13). 

Figure 3-7. Monthly Dairy Import Assessment Funds, September 2011 to December 2017 

$600,000 

$200,000 

$300,000 

$400,000 

$500,000 

$100,000 

$0 

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture 

29 
 

Figure 3-8. Quarterly Per Capita U.S. Consumption of Fluid Milk, 1995 to 2017 

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Figure 3-9. Quarterly Per Capita U.S. Consumption of Cheese, 1995 to 2017 

35.0 

37.5 

40.0 

42.5 

45.0 

47.5 

50.0 

52.5 

55.0 

Pounds 

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

6.0 

6.5 

7.0 

7.5 

8.0 

8.5 

9.0 

9.5 

10.0 

Pounds 

30 
 

 

 

Figure 3-10. Quarterly Per Capita U.S. Consumption of Butter, 1995 to 2017 

0.8 

0.9 

1.0 

1.1 

1.2 

1.3 

1.4 

1.5 

1.6 

1.7 

1.8 

Pounds 

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Figure 3-11. Quarterly Per Capita U.S. Consumption of All Dairy Products on a MilkEquivalent Fat Basis, 1995 to 2017 

130.0 

135.0 

140.0 

145.0 

150.0 

155.0 

160.0 

165.0 

170.0 

Pounds 

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture and calculations by the authors. 

31 
Figure 3-12. Quarterly Per Capita U.S. Consumption of All Dairy Products on a Skim-Solids 

Basis, 1995 to 2017 

125.0 

127.0 

129.0 

131.0 

133.0 

135.0 

137.0 

139.0 

141.0 

143.0 

145.0 

Pounds 

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture and calculations by the authors. 

Figure 3-13. Quarterly U.S. Dairy Commercial Exports on a Milk-Equivalent Fat Basis and 

Skim-Solids Basis, 1995 to 2017 

0 

2,000 

4,000 

6,000 

8,000 

10,000 

12,000 

Million Pounds 

Milk equivalent fat basis Skim solids basis 

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture and calculations by the authors. 

32 
 

 

 

 

 

 

The United States imported between $3.0 billion and $3.5 billion in dairy products in each of the 

last 5 years (Table 3-2). Cheese products accounted for slightly more than one-third (by value) 

of the dairy imports (Figure 3-14). Cheese imports as a percent of total dairy imports were 

highest in 2013 at 37.5 percent and lowest in 2012 and 2017 at 35.5 percent. 

Given these trends, the analysis in the next section addresses the response of consumers to dairy 

promotion expenditures. Structural econometric models were developed to isolate the effects of 

those expenditures on demand for dairy products from those of other fundamental economic 

forces such as price and income. The results are reported in the next section. 

Findings on Impacts of Promotion Expenditures on Dairy Demand 

The primary objective of the analysis is to answer two key questions regarding the National 

Programs over time: (1) What have been the effects of dairy promotion programs on the 

domestic consumption of fluid milk, dairy products, and exports? and (2) What have been the 

returns to dairy promotion programs? In answering the first question, the focus is on the effects 

of the dairy promotion program on the U.S. demand and exports of fluid milk and dairy products. 

Once those market effects have been determined, a benefit-cost analysis of the dairy program at 

the producer level and at the fluid milk processor level is done to answer the question about 

returns to producers. 

Table 3-2. U.S. Dairy Product Imports and Import Assessment Funds, 2012-20171 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 

Value of All Dairy 

Imports ($1,000) $3,059,069 $3,051,985 $3,452,868* $3,453,305* $3,397,271* $3,296,482 

Value of Cheese 

Imports ($1,000) $1,093,017 $1,145,000 $1,274,747* $1,290,785* $1,262,880* $1,178,895 

Quantity of Cheese 

Imports, (metric tons) 153,964 147,196 164,778* 197,768* 205,329* 182,393 

Unit Value of Cheese 

Imports ($/MT) $7,099 $7,779 $7,736 $6,527* $6,151* $6,463 

Import Assessment 

Funds ($) $3,522,145 $3,415,218 $3,411,353 $4,175,783 $4,756,864 $4,245,386 

Import Assessment per 

$1,000 of dairy 

imports 

$1.15 $1.12 $0.99 $1.21 $1.40* $1.29 

1 The import assessment went into effect April 1, 2011. Funds have been collected in each month from September 

2011 to present. The table shows funds collected from January 2013 to December 2017. 

*Revised 

Sources: Import Assessment data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Agricultural Marketing 

Service. Trade data from USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service. 

33 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3-14. U.S. Dairy Imports and Cheese Share of Dairy Import Value, 2012-2017 

37.5% 

38.5% 

39.5% 

$3,000,000 

$3,500,000 

$4,000,000 

33.5% 

34.5% 

35.5% 

36.5% 

$0 

$500,000 

$1,000,000 

$1,500,000 

$2,000,000 

$2,500,000 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 

$1,000 

Cheese share of total dairy import value Total dairy import value 

Source: Data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. Calculations by authors. 

Estimation of Dairy Consumption and Export Changes Due to Promotion 

Program Expenditures 

This evaluation study finds a significant positive association between dairy promotion program 

expenditures and consumer demand for dairy products. This association holds for all dairy 

products in the aggregate as well as for fluid milk, cheese, butter, and the activities of the 

National Programs individually. The impacts generally are modest during the quarter in which 

expenditures are made but larger cumulatively over time. 

The key indicator of the effect of promotion expenditures on dairy product demand is a measure 

of the relative sensitivity of demand to such expenditures. This measure, known as the 

promotion expenditure elasticity, is defined as the percentage change in consumption given a 1-

percent change in promotion expenditures, holding all other variables constant. 

The statistical analysis centers attention on the retail level of the marketing chain. The economic 

model provides structural parameter estimates that are statistically valid and consistent with prior 

studies in the literature on evaluation of generic commodity promotion. Two key findings of the 

statistical analysis are as follows: 

• Demand-enhancing expenditures have a significant positive impact on domestic consumption 

of dairy products. (Domestic consumption is defined as domestic commercial disappearance 

plus imports.) 

• The promotion elasticities for butter, cheese, and fluid milk for 2017 were 0.037, 0.015, and 

0.066, respectively. The promotion elasticities for all dairy products on a skim-solids basis 

34 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and on a fat basis for 2017 were 0.057 and 0.039, respectively. 

The demand responsiveness to promotion was allowed to vary over time. Further, the 

cumulative impact of promotion was also identified. Demand-enhancing expenditures affect the 

market for cheese for up to 2 quarters. The effect on fluid milk persisted for up to 8 quarters and 

up to 12 quarters for butter. For the aggregate of all dairy products, the effect persisted for 6 

quarters on both a fat and skim-solids basis. 

To measure the effects of DMI export promotion enhancement expenditures on U.S. dairy 

commercial exports, two U.S. dairy export demand models were specified and estimated using 

two different data series for dairy exports supplied by USDA: (1) dairy exports on milkequivalent skim-solids basis (SSB), and (2) dairy exports on a milk-equivalent fat basis (FB). 

The results indicated that when U.S. dairy prices were low (high) relative to Oceania dairy 

export prices, the United States exported more (less) dairy products.2 The lag length for SSB 

export promotion expenditures was estimated to be 9 quarters. The SSB export promotion 

expenditure elasticity was estimated to be statistically significant at 0.055 over the sample period 

(Table 3-3). The lag length for the FB export promotion expenditures was estimated to be 6 

quarters. The FB export promotion expenditure elasticity was estimated to be statistically 

significant at 0.100 (Table 3-3). 

The analysis covers the period of 1995 to 2017. The results are decomposed for comparison 

purposes into four similar time periods: (1) 1995-1999, (2) 2000-2004, (3) 2005-2010, and 

(4) 2011-2017. The analysis was accomplished by first aligning the annual model of the U.S. 

dairy industry maintained at the University of Missouri, the Agricultural Markets and Policy 

Group Dairy Model (AMAP Dairy Model) as modified to account for dairy promotion, with the 

observed data over the 1995 to 2017 period. Then the impact of promotion was obtained by 

removing demand-enhancing expenditures from the model. The model was first simulated over 

history to generate a “with promotion” scenario representing the effects of the dairy programs 

over actual history. A second “no promotion” scenario (the counterfactual scenario) was then 

generated by setting promotion expenditures to zero. The “zero promotion” scenario results 

represent the levels of prices and quantities that would have existed if the National Programs had 

not been created and, thus, dairy promotion had not been done. 

The results for selected key variables in the model for the “with promotion” and “no promotion” 

scenarios are presented in Table 3-4, Table 3-5, and Table 3-6. These tables provide a 

comparison of the “with promotion” levels of each variable (actual historical data) to the “no 

promotion” levels (simulated levels without promotion) to show the effects across time from 

dairy promotion spending. There are many factors at play in the year-by-year results, including 

the level of promotion expenditures each year and the supply dynamics built into the AMAP 

structural dairy model. To provide some insight into these model dynamics, four sub-periods of 

results are shown as well as the entire period for selected endogenous variables. The analysis 

starts in 1995 and, thus, does not include the effects of any dairy promotion that may have 

occurred prior to that year. 

2 Key drivers of dairy demand were found to include the ratio of the Oceania export butter price to the U.S. butter 

price on a fat basis; the ratio of the Oceania export price for skim milk powder (SMP) to the U.S. nonfat dry milk 

(NDM) price on a skim-solids basis; a measure of real world income; seasonality; and inertia or stickiness of dairy 

exports in world markets. 

35 
 

 

 

Because no other exogenous variable in the model (e.g., levels of inflation, exchange rates, 

income levels, Government policies, etc.) other than dairy promotion expenditures is allowed to 

change in either scenario, this analytical process effectively isolates the effects of the National 

Programs on U.S. dairy markets and exports. That is, the simulated differences between the 

values of the endogenous variables from the “with promotion” scenario and those from the “no 

promotion” scenario, provide direct measures of the historical effects of the dairy promotion 

expenditures (and only those expenditures) on U.S. dairy markets and exports. 

Table 3-3. Estimated Dairy Demand Sensitivity to Promotion, Prices, and Income, 1995 to 2017 

Promotion Elasticities 

1995 to 2017 2017 only 

Own-Price 

Elasticity 

Income 

Elasticity 

Butter1 0.029 0.037 -0.124 0.263 

Cheese1 0.020 0.015 -0.141 0.516 

Fluid milk1 0.082 0.066 -0.113 -0.222 

All dairy1 

Skim-solids basis 

Fat basis 

Exports1 

Skim-solids basis 

Fat basis 

0.061 

0.042 

0.055 

0.107 

0.057 

0.039 

0.055 

0.100 

-0.061 

-0.075 

-0.195 

-0.309 

0.082 

0.394 

0.655 

0.581 

1

Over the time period 1995.1 to 2017.4. 

36 
 

Table 3-4. Effects of Dairy Promotion on U.S. Dairy Markets Based on Simulation of Supply 

Response – Per Capita Consumption 

Fluid Milk Cheese Butter NFDM 

Per Capita Per Capita Per Capita Per Capita 

Consumption Consumption Consumption Consumption 

With Promotion (lbs) 7

177.21 35.14 5.59 3.17 

201

No Promotion (lbs) 161.73 33.76 5.39 3.12 

2 -

Change (lbs) 

012 

15.48 1.38 0.19 0.02 

Percent Change 9.6% 4.1% 3.6% 0.6% 

With Promotion (lbs) 195.31 32.76 4.95 3.11 

20

No Promotion (lbs) - 11177.37 31.44 4.83 3.07 

Change (lbs) 

2006 

17.93 1.32 0.12 0.04 

Percent Change 10.1% 4.2% 2.4% 1.3% 

With Promotion (lbs) 202.12 30.54 4.46 3.16 

Period 

20

No Promotion (lbs) - 05182.19 29.35 4.41 3.16 

Change (lbs) 

2000 

19.93 1.19 0.04 0.00 

Percent Change 10.9% 4.1% 1.0% 0.1% 

With Promotion (lbs) 209.95 27.68 4.32 3.24 

19

No Promotion (lbs) - 99

188.96 26.77 4.27 3.26 

Change (lbs) 

1995 

20.99 0.91 0.05 -0.02 

Percent Change 11.1% 3.4% 1.1% -0.7% 

With Promotion (lbs) 195.55 31.70 4.85 3.17 

20

No Promotion (lbs) - 17177.07 30.49 4.75 3.15 

Change (lbs) 

1995 

18.48 1.21 0.10 0.02 

Percent Change 10.4% 4.0% 2.2% 0.6% 

Source: Calculation by the authors. 

As shown in Table 3-4, the average annual per capita consumption of fluid milk, cheese, and 

butter was higher by 10.4 percent, 4.0 percent, and 2.2 percent, respectively, over the period of 

1995 to 2017 due to promotion efforts, all other exogenous factors held constant. The average 

annual per capita consumption of nonfat dry milk (NFDM) would have been 3.15 pounds per 

capita annually without promotion versus 3.17 pounds per capita as actually occurred with 

promotion over the 1995 to 2017 period, an increase of 0.6 percent. 

These results indicate that the overall downward trend of per capita fluid milk consumption 

between 1995 and 2017 was mitigated to some extent by the promotional efforts of the National 

Programs. Without the promotion programs, fluid milk consumption would have averaged 

177.07 pounds per capita annually instead of 195.55 pounds per capita annually over the 1995-

2017 period as actually occurred with promotion. Hence, the National Programs’ spending on 

fluid milk reduced the rate of decline in consumption. 

The results also indicate that the annual per capita consumption of cheese would have averaged 

30.49 pounds without promotion versus the 31.70 pounds as actually occurred with promotion 

over 1995 to 2017. For butter, annual per capita consumption would have averaged 4.75 

pounds without promotion versus the 4.85 pounds that actually occurred without promotion over 

the same period. 

37 
 

 

 

Average annual per capita consumption of fluid milk, cheese, and butter was higher by 9.6 

percent, 4.1 percent, and 3.6 percent, respectively, due to promotion during the 2012 to 2017 

period (Table 3-4). Annual exports of butter averaged 8.7 percent less than would have occurred 

without promotion, while annual exports of NFDM and cheese averaged 1.3 percent and 4.2 

percent higher, respectively, due to promotion. 

Looking specifically at import assessment impacts, cheese is the focus of the analysis given that 

cheese accounts for about one-third of total imported dairy products3 and that there are adequate 

data to support a thorough quantitative analysis. The analytical results indicate that over the 

2012-2017 period, the level of cheese imports was higher by roughly 1.2 million pounds due to 

the expenditure of promotion funds collected from importers. Further, the annual unit value of 

cheese imports amounted to roughly $3.16 per pound on average over the period 2011 to 2017 

due to promotion using import assessments. Hence, incremental revenue to importers solely from 

cheese attributed to the import assessment totaled $3.8 million. 

The average annual per capita consumption of cheese was also higher by 0.020 pounds (0.06 

percent) as a result of the promotion funded by the importer assessment. Consequently, total 

cheese consumption on average was higher by 6.4 million pounds as a result of the dairy 

importer contribution over the period of 2011 to 2017. 

Dairy Promotion Program Benefit-Cost Analysis 

This section provides a benefit-cost analysis of the National Programs based on the results of the 

scenario analyses discussed in the previous section. As calculated, the producer profit BCR is the 

additional industry profits (additional cash receipts net of additional production costs and 

promotion assessments) earned by producers as a consequence of the promotion expenditures (as 

measured through the scenario analyses) divided by the historical level of promotion 

expenditures made to generate those additional profits. The fluid milk processor BCR is 

calculated similarly to the producer BCR in which the cost of milk is used as a proxy for the cost 

of production since data for fluid milk processors’ cost of production are not available. 

Based on a comparative analysis results for the “promotion” and “no-promotion” scenarios as 

summarized in the previous section (see Table 3-4), the answer to the key question posed earlier 

regarding the National Programs, as it relates to the analyzed products, is that these programs 

have effectively increased the demand of promoted dairy products. 

As exhibited in Table 3-5, over the period of 1995-2017, the gains in profit at the producer level 

were far larger than the expenditures on demand-enhancement programs. The BCRs for 

producers for fluid milk were calculated to be $3.27 for every dollar invested in dairy demand 

promotion; for cheese $3.94 for ever dollar invested; and for butter $15.93 for every dollar 

invested. Dairy export promotion expenditures increased foreign demand for U.S. dairy products 

by $6.91 for every dollar invested. For the aggregate of all dairy products, the net profit BCR is 

$4.35 for every dollar invested. 

3 Total dairy imports include casein, lactose, milk powder, and other dairy products largely for industrial use that are 

not separately accounted for in the econometric dairy model used for this analysis. 

38 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3-5. Calculated Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCRs), in Net Profit at the Producer Level Attributable 

to the National Programs, 1995 to 2017 

Producers 

Product BCR 

All Dairy 4.35 

Fluid milk 3.27 

Cheese 3.94 

Butter 15.93 

Exports 6.91 

Source: Calculations by the authors 

The fluid milk processor BCR cannot be calculated as simply as the producer BCR since the cost 

of production data are not available. To calculate the fluid milk BCR, the milk cost is used as a 

proxy for cost of production since milk would be the largest input cost. Over the period 1995 to 

2017, the gains in profit at the fluid milk processor level were larger than the expenditures on 

demand-enhancement programs. The BCRs for fluid milk were calculated to be $3.04 for every 

dollar invested in demand-enhancing activities for fluid milk processors (Table 3-6). 

Table 3-6. Calculated Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCRs), in Net Profit at the Fluid Milk Processor Level 

Attributable to the National Programs, 1995 to 2017 

Fluid Milk Processors 

Product BCR 

Fluid Milk 3.04 

Source: Calculations by the authors 

Available expenditure data for the two participating entities in dairy promotion, DMI and 

MilkPEP, also allows for the calculation of separate BCRs for the two groups. To address the 

effectiveness of the investments made by DMI and MilkPEP separately, we simulated “with 

promotion” and “without” promotion” scenarios for each of the two entities following the same 

methodology as for the aggregate analysis. DMI promotion expenditures largely have focused 

on promotion programs for fluid milk, cheese, butter, non-delineated products, and exports. In 

contrast, MilkPEP promotion expenditures have targeted fluid milk exclusively. The scenario 

simulation results indicate that the BCR associated with DMI spending was 4.80, slightly higher 

than the 4.35 return on investment shown in Table 3-5 for all dairy product promotion 

investments. The BCR for MilkPEP was calculated at 3.04, slightly below the 3.27 calculated 

for all fluid milk promotional spending in Table 3-6. 

39 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As indicated earlier, each additional dollar spent has a declining effect on demand as spending on 

promotion increases. Thus, the total additional revenue achieved increases at a declining rate. 

This phenomenon is consistent with the law of diminishing returns in economics. Thus, the ratio 

between the additional revenue generated by promotion and the additional funds spent on 

promotion (the BCR) declines as funding increases. Further, a lower BCR during one time period 

than another or for one commodity than another does not mean the program is less effective in 

one time period than another or for one commodity than another. 

Concluding Remarks4 

This report provides an independent evaluation of the effectiveness of the National Programs 

covering the period 1995-2017. The key findings regarding markets for milk and manufactured 

dairy products over that period include the following: 

• The National Programs have effectively increased the demand for promoted dairy products, 

especially cheese and butter, and moderated the decline in per capita fluid milk consumption. 

• The gains in profit at the producer and fluid milk processer level from promotion were far 

larger than the costs of the National Programs. The overall BCR (using profit over costs) of 

the dairy producer promotion program was calculated to be 4.35. That is, for every $1 spent 

on demand-enhancing activities, dairy producers received an additional $4.35. 

• Exports of butter and nonfat dry milk were smaller by annual averages of 19.9 percent and 

8.3 percent, respectively, but exports of cheese were higher by an annual average of 5.5 

percent. 

• Promotion funds collected from importers boosted the annual average level of cheese imports 

by roughly 1.2 million pounds. Annual unit values of cheese imports amounted to about 

$3.16 per pound on average over the period 2011 to 2017. Hence, the incremental revenue to 

importers solely from cheese attributable to the expenditure of the import assessments for 

cheese promotion totaled roughly $3.8 million. 

• The BCR for fluid milk promotion was calculated to be $3.27 for every dollar invested in 

demand-enhancing activities. For cheese promotion, the BCR was calculated to be $3.94 per 

dollar invested in cheese promotion and $15.93 for every dollar invested in butter promotion. 

The BCR for dairy export promotion was calculated to be $6.91 per dollar invested. 

• The BCR for fluid milk processors attributed to the Fluid Milk Promotion Program was 

calculated to be $3.04. 

With regard to methodology, the analysis was accomplished by first statistically estimating the 

relationships between dairy product demands and the respective demand drivers including prices 

and promotion expenditures. The structural econometric models used for this analysis are 

statistically valid and largely consistent with prior studies evaluating generic commodity 

promotion. 

4 A reference list is available upon request. 

40 
 

The annual model of the U.S. dairy industry maintained at the University of Missouri, the AMAP 

Dairy Model, was modified to include the statistical results of the dairy demand statistical 

analysis and then aligned with the observed data over the 1995 to 2017 period. The model was 

then simulated over history to generate a “with promotion” scenario representing the effects of 

the dairy programs over actual history. A second “no promotion” scenario (the counterfactual 

scenario) was then generated with the model over history in which promotion expenditures in the 

dairy product demand equations were set to zero. The second scenario results represent the 

levels of prices and quantities that would have existed if the National Programs had not been 

created and, thus, dairy promotion had not been done. 

41 
 

 

 

Chapter 4 

Qualified State, Regional, or Importer 

Dairy Product Promotion, Research, or Nutrition Education Programs 

The Secretary annually certifies Qualified Programs as part of the Dairy Act and Dairy Order. 

To receive certification, the Qualified Program must meet the following (7 CFR §1150.153): 

1. Conduct activities intended to increase human consumption of milk and dairy products 

generally; 

2. Active and ongoing before passage of the Dairy Act, except for programs operated under 

the laws of the United States or any State and importer programs; 

3. Primarily financed by producers, either individually or through cooperative associations 

or dairy importers; 

4. Not use a private brand or trade name in its advertising and promotion of dairy products 

(unless approved by the Dairy Board and USDA); 

5. Certify requests from producers or importers for refunds under the program will be 

honored by forwarding to either the Dairy Board or a Qualified Program designated by 

the producer or importer that portion of such refunds equal to the amount that would 

otherwise be applicable to that program; and 

6. Not use program funds for the purpose of influencing governmental policy or action. 

The aggregate revenue from the assessment directed to the Qualified Programs in 2017 was $224 

million (approximately 10 cents of the 15-cent producer assessment and 2.5 cents of the 7.5-cent 

import assessment). This chapter provides the aggregate income and expenditure data of the 

Qualified Programs as well as a list of certified programs in 2017. 

Some Qualified Programs participate in cooperative efforts conducted and coordinated by other 

Qualified Programs and/or other organizations such as DMI, the Dairy Board, and UDIA. Their 

goal in combining funding and coordinating projects is for more effective and efficient 

management of promotion dollars through larger, broad-based projects and to avoid duplication 

of efforts. For example, to support the unified marketing plan, UDIA coordinates the programs 

and resources of 19 federation members and their affiliated units nationally through DMI. 

42 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2017 Qualified State, Regional or Importer 

Dairy Product Promotion, Research or Nutrition Education Programs 

Aggregate Income and Expenditure Data Reported to USDA 

(Thousands) 

Aggregate Income FY 2017 

Carryover from Previous Year 1 $71,652 

Producer Remittances 224,331 

Transfers from Other Qualified Programs 62,884 

Transfers to Other Qualified Programs (57,557) 

Other Income 8,321 

Total Adjusted Annual Income $309,631 

Aggregate Expenditures FY 2017 

General and Administrative $10,695 

Milk Advertising and Promotion 13,454 

Cheese Advertising and Promotion 27,511 

Butter Advertising and Promotion 8,624 

Frozen Dairy Products Advertising and Promotion 2,966 

Other Advertising and Promotion 2 2,363 

Unified Marketing Plan 3 92,956 

Dairy Foods and Nutrition Research 7,592 

Public and Industry Communications 18,939 

Nutrition Education 17,398 

Market and Economic Research 2,232 

Other 6,672 

Total Annual Expenditures $211,402 

Total Available for Future Year Programs $96,104 

1 Differences can occur because of audit adjustments and varying accounting periods. 2 Other includes “Real Seal,” holiday, multi-product, calcium, foodservice, product donations at State fairs, and 

other promotional activities. 

3 Unified Marketing Plan: Reported local spending by United Dairy Industry Association units participating in the 

Dairy Management Inc.’s Unified Marketing Plan to fund national implementation programs. 

Source: Data reported by qualified dairy product promotion, research, and nutrition education programs. 

43 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2017 Qualified State, Regional, or Importer 

Dairy Product Promotion, Research, or Nutrition Education Programs 

Alabama: 

• American Dairy Association of Alabama 

Arizona: 

• Dairy Council of Arizona 

California: 

• California Milk Advisory Board 

• Dairy Council of California 

Connecticut: 

• Connecticut Milk Promotion Board 

Florida: 

• Florida Dairy Farmers 

Georgia: 

• Georgia Agricultural Commodity 

Commission for Milk 

• Southeast United Dairy Industry 

Association (d/b/a Dairy Alliance) 

• American Dairy Association of Georgia 

Idaho: 

• Idaho Dairy Products Commission 

• Dairy West 

Illinois: 

• Illinois Milk Promotion Board 

Indiana: 

• American Dairy Association of Indiana 

• Indiana Dairy Industry Development 

Board 

Kansas: 

• Kansas Dairy Commission 

Kentucky: 

• American Dairy Association of 

Kentucky 

Louisiana: 

• Louisiana Dairy Industry Promotion 

Board 

Maine: 

• Maine Dairy and Nutrition Council 

• Maine Dairy Promotion Board 

Massachusetts: 

• Massachusetts Dairy Promotion Board 

• New England Dairy and Food Council 

• New England Dairy Promotion Board 

Michigan: 

• American Dairy Association of 

Michigan 

• Dairy Council of Michigan, Inc. 

• Michigan Dairy Market Program 

Minnesota: 

• Midwest Dairy Association 

• Midwest Dairy Council 

• Minnesota Dairy Research and 

Promotion Council 

Mississippi: 

• American Dairy Association of 

Mississippi 

Missouri: 

• Dairy Promotion, Inc. 

• Promotion Services, Inc. 

• St. Louis District Dairy Council 

44 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nebraska: 

• Nebraska Dairy Industry Development 

Board 

Nevada: 

• Nevada Farm Bureau Dairy Producers 

Committee 

New Hampshire: 

• Granite State Dairy Promotion 

New Jersey: 

• New Jersey Dairy Industry Advisory 

Council 

New York: 

• American Dairy Association & Dairy 

Council (d/b/a American Dairy 

Association Northeast) 

• Milk for Health on the Niagara Frontier 

• New York State Department of 

Agriculture, Division of Milk Control 

and Dairy Services 

• Rochester Health Foundation, Inc. 

North Carolina: 

• American Dairy Association of North 

Carolina 

North Dakota: 

• North Dakota Dairy Promotion 

Commission 

Ohio: 

• American Dairy Association Mideast 

Oregon: 

• Oregon Dairy Products Commission 

Pennsylvania: 

• Allied Milk Producers' Cooperative, Inc. 

• Mid-Atlantic Dairy Association 

• Pennsylvania Dairy Promotion Program 

Puerto Rico, Commonwealth of: 

• Milk Industry Development Fund of 

Puerto Rico (Fondo Fomento Industria 

Lechera) 

South Carolina: 

• American Dairy Association of South 

Carolina 

South Dakota: 

• American Dairy Association of South 

Dakota 

Tennessee: 

• American Dairy Association of 

Tennessee 

• Tennessee Dairy Promotion Committee 

Texas: 

• Dairy MAX, Inc. 

• Western Dairy Association (Inactive) 

• Southwest Dairy Museum, Inc. 

Utah: 

• Dairy Council of Utah and Nevada 

Vermont: 

• Vermont Dairy Promotion Council 

Virginia: 

• American Dairy Association of Virginia 

Washington: 

• Washington State Dairy Council 

• Washington Dairy Products 

Wisconsin: 

• Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board. 

45 
Qualified Importer Programs: 

• Cheese Importers Association of America (Importer) 

• Global Dairy Platform (Importer) 

• Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board (Importer) 

46 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2017 Dairy Management Inc. and United States Dairy Export Council 

Contracts Approved by USDA 

Contractor Name [Contract Activities]: 

B = Business Development C = Communications Co = Consultants, 

F = Fluid Milk Revitalization 60 = Fuel Up to Play 60 E = Exports, 

N = Nutrition and Wellness I = Ingredients K = Knowledge & Insights, 

P = Partnerships S = Sustainability U = Unified Marketing Plan 

ABB Enterprise Software Inc. [K] 

Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics [N] 

ACE Secretarial Solutions [B] 

Advantage Point Internationale, LLC [C] 

Aga, Dr. Diana [Co, S] 

Agribusiness-Connect Asia [E] 

ALG Worldwide Logistics [B] 

American Academy of Pediatrics [N] 

American Butter Institute [U] 

American Dairy Association Indiana, Inc. [U] 

American Dairy Science Association [K] 

American Humane Association [B] 

American-Mexican Marketing [E] 

American Society for Nutrition [N] 

American Society for Bone and Mineral 

Research [N] 

Animal Agriculture Alliance – College Aggies 

Online [B] 

Arab Marketing Finance, Inc. [E] 

ASK-Comm Strategies, LLC [C] 

Association of National Advertisers, Inc. [C] 

Bader Rutter and Associates, Inc. [C, E, S] 

Baxter Communications, Inc. [C] 

Benchmark Imaging & Display [B] 

Blazer, Claudia [K] 

Bodhi Road, Inc. (Fresh Company) [B] 

Bokma, Dr. Bob [Co, E] 

Bovina Mountain Consulting [E, K] 

Branded Apparel [B] 

Brand Crushin’ [U] 

Bryant Christie [Co] 

Burson-Marsteller Korea [E] 

C+R Research Services [F, K] 

California Dairy Research Foundation [K] 

Canadean – Kable Business Intelligence [E, I] 

CAST, Inc. [K] 

CBX [P] 

CEB, Inc. [B] 

Center for Food Integrity [C] 

Center for Food Safety & Regulatory Solutions 

[E, I] 

Centre National Interprofessional de 

l'Economie Laitere (CNIEL) [E, K] 

CFE Solutions, Inc. [Co] 

Cheese Chef John Esser [I] 

Cheese Market News [K] 

47 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cheese Reporter [K] 

Chicago Council on Global Affairs [K] 

Chris Cassidy Photography [C] 

Cision US Inc. [C] 

CliftonLarson Allen LLP [B] 

CMGRP, Inc., d/b/a Current Marketing [C] 

College & Professional Sports Dieticians [N] 

ConferenceDirect, LLC [B] 

Convergence LLC d/b/a GoConvergence [C,F] 

Cooperrider Associates [N] 

Copyright Clearance Center [B] 

Core Design Research LLC [K] 

Covance Laboratories Inc. [I] 

Cowboy Media Productions, LLC [C, E] 

Crimson Hexagon [C] 

Crowd Companies, LLC (Catalyst) [C] 

CSS360, LLC [B] 

CSSI, Inc. [I] 

Culinary Institute of America [I] 

CustomED [C] 

D.L. Peterson Associates [K] 

Dairy Council of Utah/Nevada [U] 

Dairy Girl Network [B] 

Dairy Global Assist, LLC [C] 

Dairy Insights, LLC [Co, E] 

Dairy Max, Inc. [U] 

Darigold, Inc. [P] 

David S. Smith America, Inc. d/b/a Worldwide 

Dispensers [F] 

DC Central Kitchen [P] 

Deforest Group [C] 

DH Business Consulting [Co] 

Digital SpeakEasy LLC [C, S] 

Discovery Education, Inc. [C] 

Dolcera Information Technology Services Pvt 

Ltd. [K] 

Domino’s Pizza Enterprises – Japan [E] 

Domino’s Pizza Enterprises – Oceania [E] 

Domino’s Pizza LLC [P] 

Drake, MaryAnne, Ph.D. [K] 

DuPuis Group [C, F] 

Dutcher & Associates, LLC [C] 

Dynamic Signal [B] 

Earthwide Business Intelligence Limited [E] 

EAS Consulting Group [I] 

East Coast Trekker [E] 

Edelman Public Relations Worldwide [C, 60] 

Elsevier B.V. [K] 

Ernst & Young Global Limited [B] 

ESHA Research [K] 

Exponent, Inc. [K] 

Fair Oaks Dairy Adventure [C, U] 

fairlife, LLC [P] 

Feeding America [P] 

Field to Market [K] 

Fleishman-Hillard Inc. [C] 

Fletcher Knight [P] 

Florida Dairy Farmers, Inc. [U] 

Food & Culinary Professionals DPG [I] 

Food Research and Action Center [N] 

48 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FoodMinds LLC [E, I] 

Foodsense, LLC [C, N] 

Foundation for Food Integrity [N] 

Girag & Associates [K] 

Global Dairy Platform, Inc. [C] 

Global Experience Specialists [B] 

Global Food & Nutrition, Inc. [E, I] 

GlobalData Plc (Canadean Consumer) [E, K] 

GNC Consulting, Inc. [B] 

HealthFocus International [N] 

Hebrew Rehabilitation Center [K] 

HGR Analytics, LLC [K] 

HighGround Trading LLC [K] 

Hillstrom Communications, Inc. [C] 

Hruska, Cindy [B, E] 

Hutchinson Cancer Research Center [K] 

Idea Couture [F] 

IDEA Health & Fitness [C] 

IFCN AG [K] 

Image Base Inc. [B] 

IN Marketing Services [F,C] 

Information Resources, Inc. [K] 

Ink Factory [C] 

Inmar Analytics, Inc. [K] 

Innerspace Studio [C] 

Innova Market Insights [K] 

Institute for Food Safety and Health [K] 

International Dairy Federation [K] 

International Dairy Foods Association [E, K] 

International Language Option [C, E] 

International Life Sciences Institute [K] 

International Scientific Association for 

Probiotics and Prebiotics [N] 

Interpublic Marketing Services Ltd. Beijing 

Branch (Weber Shandwick Shanghai) [E] 

Intersport, Inc. [C] 

IntNet [E] 

Inventit Consulting, LLC [P] 

Irish Design [B] 

J.C. Small Global Limited [Co, E] 

Joslin Diabetes Center Inc. [N] 

Johnson, Kelianne [Co] 

K&M Printing [B] 

KaiNutra [I] 

Keenan, Judy [Co] 

Kemps [P] 

Kenney, Audrey [C, E] 

Keystone Policy Center [S] 

KJ Marketing Consulting [C] 

Kolade Osho [K] 

Kopman, Chris [Co] 

Korn Ferry Hay Group, Inc. [B] 

Koski, Shannon [C, E] 

Kroger Co. [P] 

Kropp, Jeanne [Co] 

Levinson & Associates [B] 

Liberty Creative Solutions [B] 

LexisNexis [K] 

Madison+Main [F, C] 

Maine Dairy Promotion Board [U] 

49 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Market Makers, Inc. [E] 

Marketecture [K] 

Marketing Concepts, Inc. [C, I] 

Marketing Connections S.A. [E] 

McDonald’s USA, LLC [P] 

McLeod, Watkinson & Miller [B] 

Mercarum [E] 

Meros Consulting [E] 

MMS Education Inc. [C, N, 60] 

Monster Worldwide, Inc. [B] 

Moss, Melinda [Co] 

Narasimmon Consulting LLC [Co] 

National Academy of Sciences [I] 

National Dairy Shrine [B] 

National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion 

Board [F, P] 

National Football League Players Inc. [60] 

National Football League Properties [60] 

National Marketing Institute [C] 

National Milk Producers Federation [E, K] 

National Osteoporosis Foundation [N] 

NAVEX Global, Inc. [K] 

New England Dairy & Food Council, Inc. [U] 

Nokose, Inc. [K] 

Novak Birch [C, E] 

NPD Group, Inc. [K] 

NTT Data, Inc. [B, C] 

Nutrition Impact, LLC [N, K] 

Nutrition Insights LLC [N] 

Nutritional Strategies Inc. [N] 

Nygaard Consulting LLC [E, K] 

OCLC – CONTENTdm [B] 

Orrani Consulting [E, K] 

P R Consultants Limited [E] 

Parody, Kristen [Co, E] 

Paradox Nutrition LLC [C] 

Pelzer Communications Resources Inc. [C] 

Peryam & Kroll Research Corporation [F, K] 

Pizza Hut LLC [P] 

Pizza Hut Restaurants Asia Pte. Ltd. [E] 

PR Consultants Limited [E] 

Prime Consulting Group, Inc. [F, K] 

Prime Label Consultants [Co] 

Print & Marketing Solutions Group [B] 

PROforma [B] 

Protagonist/ExactCast [C] 

Quadrant Nutrition LLC [E, N] 

Quaife, Tom [Co] 

Quantis [S] 

Quarterra LLC [E] 

R.A.M. Production Service [C] 

Radloff, Katherine [Co] 

RB International [Co] 

Ready Ink Communications [C, E] 

Research Resources [I] 

Results Direct [C, E] 

Richard Fritz & Associates [E] 

River Global LLC [E] 

Robles, Sylvia [F, K] 

Rogers, Paul [Co, E] 

50 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RTC, Inc. [C, F] 

Ruby Do, Inc. [C] 

Sage Publications Inc. [C, E] 

SC Motion and Stills [C] 

Schonrock Consulting [Co, E] 

School Nutrition Association [N] 

Schulze, Brett [Co,60] 

SEOmoz, Inc. [B] 

Shainwright Consulting & Research Group [E] 

Shamrock Foods Company [P] 

Sheppard, Liz [B] 

Sheryl Stern Sachman & Associates, LLC [N] 

Shutterstock [B] 

Significant Outcomes [E] 

Sikand, Dr. Vandna [Co, E] 

Silicon Valley Forum (Agtech) [K] 

Skyline Metro DC [C] 

Soil and Water Conservation Society [S] 

Sorenson, Carla [Co] 

Southeast United Dairy Industry Association 

d/b/a The Dairy Alliance [U] 

Southeast Milk, Inc. [P] 

sparks & honey, LLC [C, K] 

Spire Research and Consulting [Co, E] 

Spredfast [K] 

SRW Marketing, Inc. [I, N] 

State Agriculture and Rural Leaders [C] 

Stiefer, David L. [Co, E] 

Story Consulting [Co, E] 

Strategy Muse [K] 

Suber Global [Co, E] 

Tableau Software [B] 

Taco Bell Corporation [P] 

TAG Enterprise [C] 

Taylor Nelson Sofres Singapore Pte Ltd [E] 

Team Services LLC [60] 

Technomic, Inc. [K] 

Texas A&M AgriLife Research [K] 

The Centre for Food & Health Studies Ltd. [N] 

The Context Network, LLC [S] 

The Economist Intelligence Unit, NA, Inc. [C] 

The Family Room Strategic Consulting Group, 

LLC [K] 

The Foundation for the National Institutes of 

Health [N] 

The Fresh Approach, Inc. [C] 

The Ginger Network, LLC [C] 

The Hartman Group [I, N] 

The Kroger Company [P] 

The McCully Group [E, I] 

The Richards Group, Inc. [F, C] 

Think Healthy Group [C] 

TNS Custom Research, Inc. d/b/a Kantar 

Worldpanel [K] 

Tong, Dr. Phillip [E, K] 

TradeMoves, LLC [E, K] 

Tractus Asia Limited [E] 

Trusted Translations, Inc. [C] 

United Dairy Industry Association, Inc. [P, U] 

United Dairymen of Arizona [U] 

Upfield Group [C] 

51 
 

 

 

USDA Agriculture Research Service, Western 

Human Nutrition Research Center [K] 

Venga Global, Inc. [C, E] 

VSBLTY [C] 

Washington Dairy Products Commission [U] 

Watson Green, LLC [B, N, U] 

Weber Shandwick Worldwide [C] 

Whey Protein Research Consortium [K] 

World Wildlife Fund, Inc. [C] 

Youth Improved Inc. d/b/a GenYouth [N, 60] 

Yum! Restaurants International, Inc. [P] 

Zenith International Ltd. [E, I] 

Zosspack Consulting [F] 

Zuber, Tristan [Co, K] 

Zuroweste, Rick [F] 

52 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2017 National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board 

Contracts Approved by USDA 

Contractor Name [Contract Activities]: 

A = Advertising and Marketing B = Business Development K = Knowledge and Insights 

M = Medical Advisory P = Partnerships 

Abrams, Dr. Steven [M] 

Arc USA Chicago [A] 

American Egg Board [P] 

Barr, Dr. Susan [M] 

Bluetext, LLC [B] 

Calabasas Pediatrics [A] 

Campbell Ewald [A] 

Chef Lala [A] 

CMGRP, Inc. d/b/a Weber Shandwick [A] 

Collective Bias [A] 

Competitor Group, Inc [P] 

Crème de la Crumb, LLC [A] 

Dairy Management Inc. [P] 

DoExtra CRM Solutions, LLC [B] 

EcoNet Ventures, LLC d/b/a Latinium 

Network [K] 

Economos, Dr. Christina [M] 

FCB Worldwide, Inc. (Foote, Cone & 

Belding) [A] 

Feeding America [P] 

Food for Thought Consulting, Inc. [K] 

Gail Golden Consulting, LLC [B] 

Grand Sports Management, LLC [A] 

Hass Avocado Board [P] 

Hill, Dr. James [M] 

Hype Agency [A] 

Influence Central, Inc. [A] 

InTech Integrated Marketing Services [B] 

International Dairy Foods Association [B] 

Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. [A] 

Ipsos-Insight, LLC [K] 

Johnson, Dr. Rachael [M] 

Klay Thompson [A] 

Leidy, Dr. Heather [M] 

Liminal Research, LLC [K] 

Lindsay, Stone & Briggs [K] 

Lorena Garcia Group Inc. [A] 

Lowe & Partners Worldwide Inc. d/b/a 

SociedAD [A] 

Lowe Campbell Ewald [A] 

Maximum Flavor, Inc. [A] 

McLeod, Watkinson & Miller [B] 

Mullen Lowe Profero, LLC [A] 

National High School Athletic Coaches 

Association [P] 

Jimmy Nguyen [A] 

Zach Parise [A] 

Popular Pays, Inc. [B] 

53 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Prime Consulting Group [A] 

Protagonist, LLC [K] 

Radius Global Market Research [K] 

Red Spark Consulting, LLC [A] 

Revere Bank [B] 

Rinny Runs Endurance Sports, Inc. [A] 

Rubin, Ronald [B] 

Sally’s Baking Addiction, LLC [A] 

Saunders, Dr. Michael [M] 

SCA Promotions, Inc. [B] 

Snyder-Cohn, PC [B] 

Socialyte LLC [A] 

Spectrum Group Productions, Inc. [B] 

Tara Gidus Nutrition Consulting [A] 

Taza LLC [A] 

The Colony Group, LLC [B] 

The Marketing Arm, Inc. [A] 

ThinkVine Corporation [K] 

United States Olympic Committee [A, P] 

United States Swimming, Inc. [P] 

United States Triathlon of Colorado [P] 

Upshots, Inc. [K] 

Ventura Associates [A] 

Weelicious, Inc. [A] 

54 
 

 

 

 

2017 National Dairy Foods Research Centers 

Established in 1987, there are six university-affiliated National Dairy Foods Research Centers 

supported by the National Dairy Council. The mission of the National Dairy Foods Research 

Centers is to conduct research, educate professionals, transfer knowledge to industry, and create 

dairy products and ingredients with improved health, safety, quality, and functionality. 

California Dairy Research Center 

The California Dairy Foods Research Center, located at the Dairy Innovation Institute at 

California Polytechnic State University–San Luis Obispo, supports the dairy industry from farm 

to table. Working with the California Dairy Research Foundation, the California Dairy Foods 

Research Center conducts applied and strategic dairy research and development in the areas of 

product technology and utilization, ingredient technology and utilization, products for health 

enhancement, food quality, and food safety. Facilities at the Dairy Innovation Institute are stateof-the-art, equipped with advanced and routine analytical equipment, dairy foods pilot plants, 

and a commercially licensed dairy processing facility. Adjacent to the Dairy Innovation Institute 

is the Cal-Poly University dairy farm, where fresh milk is available for research and 

development activities. For additional information, please visit: www.dptc.calpoly.edu. 

• California Polytechnic State University–San Luis Obispo 

David W. Everett, Ph.D., Center Director 

• California Dairy Research Foundation 

Midwest Dairy Foods Research Center 

The Midwest Dairy Foods Research Center is a collaborative effort between dairy farmers and 

land-grant universities with a mission of providing responsive, agile, thorough and 

comprehensive product research. The Midwest Dairy Foods Research Center is well equipped 

with dairy processing and research facilities located at the University of Minnesota (St. Paul), 

South Dakota State University (Brookings), and Iowa State University (Ames). Research 

focuses on improving and controlling flavor development and functionality in cheese; improving 

the performance of cheese starter cultures through genetics; adding value to milk-based products 

with probiotics and nutraceuticals; improving shelf life of flavored milks; reducing undesirable 

taste attributes of milk; improving functionality and controlling flavor attributes of milk 

fractionation components; and developing methods for effective and profitable uses of whey. 

For additional information, please visit: www.midwestdairy.umm.edu. 

• South Dakota State University–Brookings 

Lloyd Metzger, Ph.D., Center Director 

• University of Minnesota–St. Paul 

Peggy Lehtola, Center Assistant Director 

• Iowa State University–Ames 

Stephanie Clark, Ph.D., Center Associate Director 

55 
 

 

 

 

 

 

• Midwest Dairy Foods Research Center Affiliated Universities: 

University of Nebraska–Lincoln 

Kansas State University 

University of Missouri 

Northeast Dairy Foods Research Center 

The Northeast Dairy Foods Research Center, located at Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, was 

formed to conduct fluid milk and dairy ingredient research, provide applications and technical 

support for the improvements in milk powder quality and help establish the next generation of 

dairy ingredients. The Northeast Dairy Foods Research Center provides new learning 

opportunities for industry with short-course training in dairy food safety and Hazard Analysis 

and Critical Control Points and dairy processing, including artisan dairy production, with 

certificate programs in fluid milk processing, cheese making, and yogurt production. Facilities 

available at Cornell University include the Food Processing and Development Laboratory, 

Cornell Dairy Processing Plant, the Food Safety Laboratory, and the Sensory Evaluation Center. 

For additional information, please visit: www.foodscience.cals.cornell.edu/research. 

• Cornell University 

David M. Barbano, Ph.D., Center Director 

Martin Wiedmann, Ph.D., DR. Med. Vet., Center Associate Director 

• University of Vermont 

Southeast Dairy Foods Research Center 

The Southeast Dairy Foods Research Center has been in operation since 1988. Facilities are 

located at North Carolina State University, which is the lead institution, joined by Mississippi 

State University (Starkville). The Southeast Dairy Foods Research Center conducts research, 

educates scientists, and develops and applies new technologies for processing milk and its 

components into dairy products and ingredients with improved health, safety, quality, and 

expanded functionalities. The Southeast Dairy Foods Research Center hosts a Food Rheology 

Laboratory, Nutrition Technical Services Laboratory, and a Sensory Applications Laboratory, 

conducting analytical, qualitative, and affective sensory tests and flavor chemistry analyses 

tailored to meet specific needs of the dairy industry. For more information, please visit: 

sdfrc.ncsu.edu. 

• North Carolina State University 

MaryAnn Drake, Ph.D., Center Director 

• Mississippi State University–Starkville 

Western Dairy Center 

The Western Dairy Center is located at the Utah State University, which is the lead institution. It 

is joined by affiliated universities through the Build University-Industry Linkages through 

Learning and Discovery Program (BUILD). The Western Dairy Center research focus includes 

56 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cheese flavor and functionality; cheese technology; fermented products, including cheese and 

yogurt; ultra-high-temperature and extended-shelf-life fluid milk beverages; milk protein 

chemistry, including coagulation, denaturation, and separation; milk fractionation and use of 

membrane separation in dairy foods; anaerobic digestion of dairy processing waste; whey protein 

extrusion; application of genetics, genomics, and metabolomics to lactic acid bacteria; whey and 

milk utilization; and microstructure of dairy. For additional information, please visit: 

www.usu.edu/westcent. 

• Utah State University–Logan 

Donald J. McMahon, Ph.D., Center Director 

• Western Dairy Center Affiliated Universities: 

Brigham Young University 

Oregon State University 

Texas A&M University 

University of Idaho 

Washington State University 

Weber State University 

Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research 

Building on Wisconsin’s tradition as the “Dairy State,” the Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research 

was established in 1986 to provide the foremost scientific expertise in dairy research, technical 

support, and education. The Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research is located within a licensed 

operating dairy plant on the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus. The Wisconsin Center 

for Dairy Research offers expertise in five main program areas: cheese, dairy ingredients and 

functionality, cultured products and beverages, quality/safety, and dairy processing. Each of 

these areas are supported by expertise in dairy product research, sensory research, analytics, 

training, and outreach. In addition to degree programs, the Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research 

provides specialized training and short courses to over 1,400 industry personnel annually and 

cosponsors the Wisconsin Master Cheesemaker Program. Its extensive facilities include a 

cheese pilot plant, dairy ingredients pilot plan, sensory lab, an analytical lab, and an applications 

lab. For additional information, please visit: www.cdr.wisc.edu. 

• University of Wisconsin–Madison 

John Lucey, Ph.D., Center Director 

Mark Johnson, Ph.D., Assistant Director 

57 
 

 

 

2017 Nutrition Competitive Research Activities 

Lacy Alexander, PhD (Pennsylvania State University): Milk and cheese consumption and human 

microvascular function [ongoing 2017]. 

David Allison, PhD (Indiana University): Science dialogue mapping of knowledge and 

knowledge gaps related to the effects of dairy intake on human health [ongoing 2017]. 

Connie W. Bales, PhD, RD (Duke University Medical Center): An enhanced protein (dairy) 

weight loss intervention for Dynapenic Obesity: Impact on Muscle Quality and Composition 

[ongoing 2017]. 

Leila Barraj, PhD (Exponent, Inc.): Healthcare Costs and Savings Associated with Increased 

Dairy Consumption [ongoing 2017]. 

Christopher Blesso, PhD (University of Connecticut): Milk Phospholipids for the Prevention of 

Atherosclerosis [commenced 2017]. 

Bradley Bolling, PhD (University of Wisconsin-Madison): Reduction of obesity-associated 

intestinal inflammation by low-fat dairy yogurt [concluded 2017]. 

Sarah L. Booth, PhD (Tufts University): Menaquinone (Vitamin K2) content of dairy products 

[concluded 2017]. 

Richard Bruno, PhD, RD (Ohio State University): Regulation of postprandial nitric oxide 

bioavailability and vascular function by Dairy Milk [ongoing 2017]. 

In-Young Choi, PhD (University of Kansas Medical Center): Dairy intake and cerebral 

antioxidant defense in aging: a dietary intervention study [ongoing 2017]. 

Sharon Donovan, PhD, RD and Barbara Fiese, PhD (University of Illinois at Urbana -

Champaign): STRONG Kids 2: A Cells-to-Society Approach to Nutrition in Early Childhood 

[ongoing 2017]. 

Foundation for the National Institutes of Health: The Performance of Novel Cardiac Biomarkers 

in the General U.S. Population [ongoing 2017]. 

Osama Hamdy, MD, PhD, FACE (Joslin Diabetes Center): Dairy and type 2 diabetes: Research, 

outreach, and education [ongoing 2017]. 

Naiman A. Khan, PhD, RD (University of Illinois at Urbana - Champaign): Diet quality & 

cognitive control function in early childhood: A pilot study [ongoing 2017]. 

Samuel Klein, MD (Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine): Diet and exercise 

intervention in Type 2 Diabetes [ongoing 2017]. 

Jana Kraft, PhD (University of Vermont): Researching the effects of consuming a diet 

comprising of milk fat on metabolic health markers [ongoing 2017]; Full-fat yogurt and glucose 

tolerance [commenced 2017]. 

Mario Kratz, PhD, MS (Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center - University of Washington): 

The Impact of Low-fat and Full-fat Dairy Consumption on Glucose Homeostasis [ongoing 2017]. 

58 
 

 

Ronald M. Krauss, MD (Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute): Effects of replacing 

sugar sweetened beverages with milk on metabolic risk factors in overweight and obese 

adolescents [concluded 2017]; Effects of a modified high-fat Mediterranean dietary pattern on 

lipoprotein and inflammatory markers of CVD risk in adults [ongoing 2017]. 

Benoit Lamarche, PhD, FAHA (Laval University (Canada)): Investigation of the impact of 

cheese consumption on HDL function [ongoing 2017]. 

Benjamin F. Miller, PhD (Colorado State University): Activation of Nrf2 by conjugated linoleic 

acid to decrease oxidative stress and inflammation and thereby increase muscle building effects 

of milk proteins [ongoing 2017]. 

Lynn L. Moore, D.Sc., MPH (Boston University School of Medicine): Protein Effects on 

Metabolic Outcomes in Older Adults [ongoing 2017]; Effects of animal and plant proteins on 

functional decline in older adults [ongoing 2017]. 

Paul Moughan, PhD (Massey University (New Zealand)): Determination of True Ileal Amino 

Acid Digestibility in Dietary Protein Sources Commonly Consumed by Humans: Toward an 

international database of the protein quality of human foods [ongoing 2017]. 

Douglas Paddon-Jones, PhD (University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston): Whey Protein, 

Aging and Physical Inactivity [ongoing 2017]. 

Stuart Phillips, PhD (McMaster University (Canada)): Whey protein intake in the amelioration of 

skeletal muscle quantity and function during inactivity in older adults [ongoing 2017]. 

Scott A. Rankin, PhD (University of Wisconsin-Madison): Catalytic conversion of lactose-rich 

co-products into value-added components [commenced 2017]. 

Stephen Ritchie, PhD (University of Alabama): Functionalized mesh materials for Listeria 

mitigation in milk and milk-derived products processed in dairy plants [commenced 2017]. 

Shivani Sahni, PhD (Harvard University - Hebrew Rehabilitation Center): Dairy food intake, 

vitamin D status and bone measures [ongoing 2017]. 

Karen Schmidt, PhD (Kansas State University): Producing dairy protein ingredients for targeted 

markets [ongoing 2017]. 

Carolyn Scrafford, PhD, MPH (Exponent, Inc.): Nutrition Evidence Library Review of Dairy and 

Health Outcomes [ongoing 2017]. 

Tonya Schoenfuss, PhD (University of Minnesota): Evaluation of cheese with desirable fat and 

sodium attributes for school lunch snack choices [ongoing 2017]; Improving sensory and 

functional properties of reduced sodium low—moisture part—skim mozzarella cheese via brine 

and make procedure modifications [ongoing 2017]. 

Jeffery Schwimmer, MD (University of Birmingham): In Children with Obesity, the Intake of 

Dairy-Derived Odd Chain and Branched Chain Fatty Acids is Inversely Associated with the Risk 

for Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease [commenced 2017]. 

59 
Mary Beth Spitznagel, PhD andJohn Gunstad, PhD (Kent State University): Is Milk the Drink 

that Helps You Think? Dairy, Acute Glycemic Control, and Cognitive Function [concluded 

2017]. 

Lyn Steffen, PhD, MPH, RD (University of Minnesota): Dairy Consumption, Dietary Patterns 

and Cardiac Phenotypes [commenced 2017]. 

Hirofumi Tanaka, PhD (University of Texas): Destiffening and hypotensive effects of whole milk 

and full-fat dairy products [ongoing 2017]. 

Jeff Volek, PhD, RD (Ohio State University): Controlled clinical study to determine novel health 

benefits of cheese consumption [ongoing 2017]. 

Elena Volpi, MD, PhD (University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston): Whey protein and 

exercise to accelerate recovery of muscle mass and function after acute hospitalization in 

previously independent older adults [concluded 2017]. 

Taylor Wallace, PhD, CFS, FACN (National Osteoporosis Foundation & George Mason 

University): Protein intake and bone health – Phase II Systematic review and meta-analysis 

[ongoing 2017]. 

Gareth Wallis, PhD (University of Birmingham (United Kingdom)): Exploring novel uses for 

lactose constituents in sports nutrition [commenced 2017]. 

Connie Weaver, PhD (Purdue University): Guidelines for Enhancing Design and Analysis of 

Prospective Cohort Studies Related to Bone Health for Use in Nutrition and Health Research 

[commenced 2017]. 

Robin White, PhD (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University): Nutritional and 

Environmental Consequences of Dairy Removal from US Agriculture [commenced 2017]. 

Christine D. Wu, PhD (University of Illinois-Chicago): Consumption of milk after sugar snacks 

reduces dental plaque acid production and benefits oral health in children [ongoing 2017]. 

60 
 

 

 

 

 

 

2017 Product Competitive Research Projects 

Principal Investigator, Institution, Project Title and Status 

Alirez Abbaspourrad, PhD (Cornell University): Annatto-free Cheddar Cheese Whey [ongoing 

2017]. 

Jayendra K. Amamcharla, PhD (Kansas State University): Use of Nano-scale aqueous ozone to 

remove biofilms from selected dairy product contact surfaces [ongoing 2017]; Use of Micro and 

Nano bubbles in Spray drying [ongoing 2017]; Altering the microstructure to improve 

functionality of dairy powders using micro- and nano-bubbles [ongoing 2017]. 

Jayendra K. Amamcharla, PhD (Kansas State University) and Lloyd Metzger, PhD (South 

Dakota State University): Understanding the effects of various intrinsic and extrinsic factors on 

the stability of lactose-rich co-product [commenced 2017]. 

Samuel Alcaine, PhD (Cornell University): Evaluation of Protective Bacterial Cultures for the 

Effective Control of Listeria in High Risk Cheese [commenced 2017]; Evaluation of commercial 

bio-protective cultures and their ability to inhibit the outgrowth of eukaryotic spoilers in cheese 

[commenced 2017]; Create Nationwide Food Safety Resources and provide support for 

Artisan/Farmstead Dairy Producers [commenced 2017]; Designed Survival of Protective and 

Probiotic Cultures through HPP for Novel Dairy Products [commenced 2017]. 

Sanjeev Anand, PhD (South Dakota State University): Understanding the process of spore 

germination or sporulation, and biofilm formation under simulated skim milk powder 

manufacturing conditions [concluded 2017]; Evaluation of adherence ability and biofilm 

formation of HHRS to modified stainless steel surfaces [concluded 2017]; Scale up of 

hydrodynamic cavitation as an in-line process combined with milk pasteurization for 

sporeformer control [ongoing 2017]; Evaluating enzyme formulations for biofilm removal from 

dairy separation membranes [ongoing 2017]; To identify quorum inhibitor based anti-biofilm 

molecules for developing new generation membrane-biofilm cleaners for the dairy industry 

[commenced 2017]. 

David M. Barbano, PhD (Cornell University) and MaryAnne Drake, PhD (North Carolina State 

University): The impact of milk and whey protein based ingredients on sensory and physical 

properties of beverages [ongoing 2017]. 

Maire Begley, PhD (Cork Institute of Technology (Ireland)): Identification of microbiallyderived anti-listeria compounds using high-throughput robotics [ongoing 2017]. 

Andreia Bianchini, PhD (University of Nebraska): Application of interventions at farm level to 

reduce sporeformer bacteria [ongoing 2017]. 

Mindy Brashears, PhD (Texas Tech University): Inhibition of Listeria monocytogenes on Cheese 

using Lactic Acid Bacteria as a Biocontrol System Intervention [commenced 2017]. 

Stephanie Clark, PhD and Tong Wang, PhD (Iowa State University): Technology for novel and 

scalable isolation of dairy phospholipids (PL) and its stabilization against lipid auto-oxidation 

[commenced 2017]. 

61 
 

 

Dennis D’Amico, PhD (University of Connecticut): Determining the efficacy of glycolipids to 

control Listeria monocytogenes in Queso Fresco [commenced 2017]. 

MaryAnne Drake, PhD (North Carolina State University): Southeast Dairy Center Application 

Laboratory Program [ongoing 2017]; The role of Vitamin Premix on Flavor and Flavor Stability 

of Fluid Milk [concluded 2017], Identification of the chemical flavor differences between milks 

ultra-pasteurized by indirect or direct heat [ongoing 2017]; Food Safety Course for Artisan and 

Farmstead Cheesemakers [ongoing 2017]; Consumer perceptions of lactose free milk 

[commenced 2017]; Sensory analysis of white and chocolate milk on child acceptance 

[commenced 2017]; Determination of the impact of anticake agents on consumer perception of 

Cheddar cheese shreds [commenced 2017]; Evaluation of methods to reduce astringency in 

clear acidic protein beverages [commenced 2017]; The role of packaging on the flavor of fluid 

milk [commenced 2017]. 

Susan E. Duncan, PhD (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University): Milk packaging 

options for light protection of milk flavor from processing through retail purchase [ongoing 

2017]; Color Temperature Guidance for Optimizing LED Lighting in Retail Dairy Cases 

[commenced 2017]. 

David W. Everett, PhD (California Polytechnic State University – San Luis Obispo): California 

Dairy Center Application Laboratory Program [ongoing 2017]; Improving the Flavor of Cheese 

Made from Powdered Milk Using Buttermilk [commenced 2017]. 

Kathleen Glass, PhD (University of Wisconsin-Madison): Inhibition of Clostridium Botulinum in 

Reduced-Sodium Pasteurized Cheese Products [concluded 2017]; Control of Listeria 

monocytogenes in high-moisture cheese [ongoing 2017]; Safety of reduced sodium processed 

cheese [commenced 2017]. 

Lisbeth Goddik, PhD (Oregon State University): Impact of Milk Hauling and Receiving on 

Microbial Content in Raw Milk [ongoing 2017]; A comprehensive approach to reducing the risk 

of E. coli in bloomy rind cheeses: product reformulation and HPP [commenced 2017]. 

Selvarani Govindasamy-Lucey, PhD (University of Wisconsin-Madison): Shelf-life Extension of 

Cream Cheeses for Export [concluded 2017]; Controlling cheese acidity by adjustment of the 

lactose to protein content of cheese milk [ongoing 2017]; Extending the shelf-life performance of 

natural Mozzarella cheese for export markets [ongoing 2017]; High Quality Block Gouda by Dry 

Salting Method [commenced 2017]. 

Federico Harte, PhD (Pennsylvania State University): High Pressure Jet Spray Drying to Create 

Novel Dairy Powders [commenced 2017]. 

Shinya Ikeda, PhD (University of Wisconsin-Madison): Inhibiting the formation of poorly 

soluble skin layers on high milk protein powders [commenced 2017]. 

Mark Johnson, PhD (University of Wisconsin-Madison): Improving the Functionality and 

Quality of Large Cheese Blocks [commenced 2017]; Use of extrusion technology for snack 

cheeses [commenced 2017]. 

Kevin Keener, PhD (Iowa State University): Controlling Listeria monocytogenes in soft cheeses 

with high voltage atmospheric cold plasma (HVACP) treatment [ongoing 2017]. 

62 
 

 

 

 

 

Nancy L. Keim, PhD, RD (USDA-Agricultural Research Service): Evaluation of Health Benefits 

of a High-Quality Diet in Persons at Risk for Development of Metabolic Disease: Rapidity and 

Weight-Independent Effects [ongoing 2017]. 

John A. Lucey, PhD (University of Wisconsin-Madison): Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research 

Applications Laboratory [ongoing 2017]; Designing novel cheese with high levels of intact 

casein [ongoing 2017]; Separation and Characterization of Phospholipids from Whey Protein 

Phospholipid Concentrate (WPPC), and other dairy feed streams [commenced 2017]; Impact of 

Microfiltration Retentates on Cheese Quality [commenced 2017]; New membrane technology to 

make high-value dairy ingredients [commenced 2017]. 

Donald McMahon, PhD (Utah State University): Western Dairy Center Technology Innovation 

Laboratory Program [ongoing 2017]. 

Lloyd Metzger, PhD (South Dakota State University): Midwest Dairy Foods Applications 

Laboratories Program [ongoing 2017]; Improve technology to manufacture lactose and dry acid 

whey [concluded 2017]; Explore technologies to reduce microbial load in dairy powders 

at/before packaging step [commenced 2017]. 

Carmen Moraru, PhD (Cornell University): Use of Forward Osmosis as a Non-Thermal Method 

of Concentration for the Manufacture of High-Quality Milk Concentrates and Powders [ongoing 

2017]. 

NIZO Food Research B.V. (Netherlands): Reduction of spore count in milk powder production -

Phase II of development of an improved enumeration method for highly heat resistant spores 

[ongoing 2017]. 

Hasmukh Patel, PhD and Lloyd Metzger, PhD (South Dakota State University) and Cordelia 

Selomulya, PhD (Monash University (Australia)): Single droplet drying technology for 

optimization of dairy ingredients for best quality and functionality [ongoing 2017]. 

Hasmukh Patel, PhD (South Dakota State University): Scale-up and implementation of strategies 

to improve quality and process efficiency during manufacturing of dairy ingredients [ongoing 

2017]; Comparison of functionality and properties of liquid concentrates and dried dairy 

ingredients [ongoing 2017]. 

Sonia Patel, MSc (University of Minnesota): Development of a shelf stable dairy-based creamer 

[concluded 2017]. 

Martin Wiedmann, PhD, DVM (Cornell University): Impact of bedding type in raw milk 

contamination with spore formers affecting dairy powder quality [ongoing 2017]; Understanding 

regulation of Listeria monocytogenes cell envelope composition to facilitate development and 

discovery of improved control strategies [concluded 2017]; Evaluation of variation in spore 

count methods and determination of optimal parameters for standardization of milk powder 

spore testing [ongoing 2017]. 

Bongkosh Vardhanabhuti, PhD (University of Missouri) and Lloyd Metzger, PhD (South Dakota 

State University): Whey protein ingredient with improved emulsification properties [ongoing 

2017]. 

63 
Qixin Zhong, PhD (University of Tennessee): Delivery system of lactose to improve the quality 

of milk for lactose-intolerant consumers [ongoing 2017]. 

64 
 

2017 Sustainability Competitive Research Activities 

Principal Investigator, Institution, Project Title and Status 

Diana Aga, PhD (University of Buffalo): Understanding and guidance on the fate and transport 

of pharmaceuticals, endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs), herbicides, and pathogens in 

dairy manure [commenced 2017]. 

Richard A. Erdman, PhD (National Research Council and University of Maryland): Nutrient 

Requirements of Dairy Cattle, 8th Edition [concluded 2017]. 

Olivier Joliet, PhD (University of Michigan): Dairy’s Nutritional Benefit and Environmental 

Impact – Phase II [ongoing 2017]. 

Ermias Kebreab, PhD (University of California - Davis): Interactions between dairy cattle 

nutrition and management interventions versus enteric and manure emissions and nitrogen 

excretion – Model Assessment [ongoing 2017]. 

Johannes Lehmann, PhD (Cornell University): Feasibility Assessment of Dairy Biochar as a 

Value-Added Potting Mix in Horticulture and Ornamental Gardening [commenced 2017]. 

Meredith Niles, PhD (University of Vermont): Assessing Dairy Farmer Decisions and Barriers 

for Adopting Sustainable Manure Management Systems [commenced 2017]. 

Mary Beth de Ondarza, PhD (Paradox Nutrition, LLC): Advantages and limitations of dairy 

efficiency measures and the effects of nutrition and feeding management interventions II 

[ongoing 2017]. 

65 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 

National Dairy Promotion and Research Board 

Years Ended December 31, 2017 and 2016 

With Reports of Independent Auditors 

Ernst & Young LLP 

EV 

Building a better 

working world