Agricultural Marketing Service :iiiiilll U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

1

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Report to Congress 

on the 

Dairy Promotion and 

Research Program 

and the 

Fluid Milk 

Processor Promotion Program 

2020 Activities 

September 2023 
 

Contact Information 

Promotion, Research, and Planning Division 

USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service, Dairy Program 

Stop, 0233, Room 2542-South 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20250-0233 

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

Oral Capps, Jr., PhD 

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.usdairy.com 

National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board 

1250 H Street NW, Suite 950 

Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 737-0153 

http://www.milklife.com 

2 
 

 

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 the USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based 

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

orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/paternal status, income derived from 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 (i.e., 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. 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents 

Contact Information..................................................................................................................................... 2 

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 5 

Chapter 1: The Dairy and Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Programs ......................................................... 7 

Chapter 2: USDA Activities.........................................................................................................................10 

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 ...............13 

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

Education Programs....................................................................................................................................37 

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

Activities......................................................................................................................................................41 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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, 2020, 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 $346.8 million in 2020. The Dairy 

Board portion of assessments totaled $120.5 million, and the Qualified Dairy Product Promotion, 

Research, or Nutrition Education Programs (QPs) totaled $223.6 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 consumption of dairy 

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

innovations for dairy product consumption. 

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

may be found in Chapter 4. 

Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Program 

Mandatory assessments collected under the Fluid Milk Act totaled $85.7 million in 2020. 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, 

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 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, $7.2 million was returned to the California Milk Processor Board. The 

activities of the Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Program are presented in the Fluid Milk Board 

section in Chapter 1. 

5 
 

 

 

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. 

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 2020 promotion activities on the 

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

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

dollar invested in demand-enhancing activities, the BCRs for producers were as follows: (1) fluid 

milk - $1.91; (2) cheese - $3.27; (3) butter - $24.11. The BCR for fluid milk processors attributed 

to fluid milk promotion activities is $2.84. 

6 
 

 

 

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 

2020 audit report can be found at: https://www.usdairy.com/getmedia/745960ff-f870-4ed5-a105-

a17963b6efb7/National-Dairy-Board_2020-19_FINAL-(Secured).pdf?ext=.pdf. The Dairy 

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

required by the Dairy Order. 

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 16 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 

(41) 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. 

7 
 

 

 

During 2020, 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 2020. 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 five joint program committees: Position U.S. Dairy in a Global Food 

System; Accelerate Incremental Sales Growth; Build Trust in Youth and the Conflicted Health 

Seeker; Farmer and Community Relations; and Exports. Each committee elects a chair and vicechair. The DMI Board and joint committees set program priorities, plan activities and projects, 

and evaluate results. During 2020, the Dairy Board and UDIA Board met jointly six times both 

in person and virtually due to the pandemic. 

For more information on the Dairy Board and UDIA Board activities and initiatives implemented 

in 2020, see the DMI annual report at https://www.usdairy.com/getattachment/2472fdaf-a14d4cc9-9577-6372c876cce5/2020-annual-report.pdf?lang=en-US&ext=.pdf. 

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. 

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 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 

8 
review all program authorization requests for funding sufficiency as well as review 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 2020 to conduct board business. 

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

audit. The Fluid Milk Board’s 2020 audit report can be found at https://s3-us-west2.amazonaws.com/externalassets-p.milkpepproduction.g43labs.net/2020%20Annual%20Report/2020%20Financial%20Statements%20and% 

20Independent%20Auditor's%20Report.pdf. The Fluid Milk Board’s administrative budget 

continued to be within the 5-percent-of-revenue limitation required by the Fluid Milk Order. For 

more information on the Fluid Milk Board activities and initiatives implemented in 2020, see the 

MilkPEP annual report at https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/externalassets-p.milkpepproduction.g43labs.net/2020%20Annual%20Report/MilkPEP%202020%20Annual%20Report% 

20-%20Final.pdf. 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 and the U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans in addition to 

other legislation. 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 and Orders; 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 

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 

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 current 

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 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 that expend assessment funds be approved by 

the Secretary. During 2020, the AMS Dairy Program reviewed and approved 508 Dairy Board 

and DMI agreements, amendments, and annual plans. During 2020, DMI retained the certified 

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

National Milk Producers Federation; McDonald's USA, LLC; Padilla Speer Beardsley Inc.; 

Cornell University; and Sopexa USA. No material exceptions were found. 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

USDA Foreign Agricultural Service 

The Secretary of Agriculture has delegated oversight responsibility for all foreign market 

development activities outside the United States to the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service 

(FAS) (7 CFR 2.43(a)(24)). FAS reviews the US Dairy Export Council (USDEC) foreign market 

development plan and related contracts. The AMS Dairy Program also reviews USDEC contracts 

to ensure conformance with the Dairy Act and Dairy Order and established USDA policies. In 

2020, the AMS Dairy Program reviewed and approved 113 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 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 States having mandatory assessment laws, 

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

responsible for remittance of State assessments. In 2020, exempted assessments totaled 

$3,160,019. 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 2020, the AMS Dairy 

Program’s oversight expenses totaled $722,855, and the Federal Milk Market Administrators 

incurred $173,681 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 2020, 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 2020 in Chapter 4. 

National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board Oversight 

Program Development 

The Fluid Milk Board contracted with Arc USA Chicago; Gale Partners, LLC; and the 

Interpublic Group Agencies of Campbell-Ewald and CMGRP, Inc., d/b/a Weber Shandwick, to 

11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

national fluid milk campaign. 

Collections 

The Fluid Milk Act specifies that 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 2020, the AMS Dairy Program approved 155 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 

2020 to audit the records of: Campbell Ewald; Arc USA Chicago; 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, 

amending 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 2020, the amount of exempted fluid milk 

assessments was approximately $2,732,817. The Fluid 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 2020, the AMS Dairy Program’s 

oversight expenses totaled $459,731, and the Federal Milk Market Administrators incurred 

$90,926 in expenses for verification audits conducted on behalf of the Fluid Milk Board. 

12 
 

 

 

 

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 – 1995 to 2020 

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 2020 quantitative evaluation of the 

effectiveness of the dairy and fluid milk promotion programs. 

Background on the Promotion Program 

The Dairy Research and Promotion Program, also known as the Dairy Checkoff Program, is a 

coordinated national 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-centper-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 16 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 Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Program, or Milk Processor Education Program (MilkPEP), 

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 Dairy Research and Promotion 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. 

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. 

13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Objectives of the Evaluation Study 

The National Programs are evaluated with two key questions in mind: (1) Have the demandenhancing activities conducted by dairy producers, importers, and fluid milk processors 

increased the demand for fluid milk and manufactured dairy products? and (2) Did those who 

have paid for the promotions benefit from them? 

Historically, these questions have been answered through econometric studies of the 

relationships between the consumption of dairy products and promotion program demandenhancing 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 often is taken as an indication of the impact of a program. 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. Consequently, metrics other than the 

BCR, such as the level of impact on consumption, prices, and exports, are more revealing and 

useful indicators of the magnitude of checkoff program impact and effectiveness than the BCR. 

The objectives of this report are to: 

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. Provide a quantitative analysis of dairy product imports and import assessments. 

3. Update the benefit-cost analysis associated with the National Programs for dairy producers, 

fluid milk processors, and importers. 

This project covers the period of 1995 to 2020 and captures the joint efforts of DMI, MilkPEP, 

and QPs. The shares of each promotion entity in the total demand-enhancing expenditures over 

this period are as follows: (1) DMI – 25.98 percent; (2) MilkPEP – 23.39 percent; and (3) QPs – 

50.63 percent. 

Summary of the Findings 

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

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

consumption of fluid milk, cheese, and butter rose by 7.9 percent, 3.9 percent, and 5.3 percent 

respectively. In addition, per capita consumption of nonfat dry milk was higher by 1.6 percent 

over this period. Exports of butter were lower by 24.3 percent, but exports of cheese were higher 

by 5.0 percent. Exports of nonfat dry milk were virtually unchanged (up by 0.1 percent) over the 

1995 to 2020 period. 

The gains in profit at the farm level were 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 

14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

overhead, technical support, and industry relations. 

Over the period from 1995 to 2020, the BCRs expressed in terms of producer profit at the farm 

level were calculated to be $1.91 for every dollar invested in demand-enhancing activities for 

fluid milk; $3.27 for every dollar invested in demand-enhancing activities for cheese; and $24.11 

for every dollar invested in demand-enhancing activities for butter. For other non-specific 

promotion activities, the BCR was calculated to be $6.93 for every dollar invested. Over the 

same period, the BCR of export promotion was $7.43 per dollar invested. On a fat and skim 

solids basis, a significant positive relationship was evident between the demand for all dairy 

products and the advertising and promotion expenditures associated with the National Programs. 

The aggregate all-dairy BCR was 4.30, meaning that, on average, producer profit increased by 

$4.30 for each dollar invested in demand-enhancing activities. Even though the National 

Programs enhanced producer profit on average, some producers still may be incurring operating 

losses. These BCRs or returns on investment (ROIs), except for fluid milk, correspond well with 

those reported in the previous Report to Congress. Previously, the BCR for fluid milk was 

calculated to be 3.26 using data from 1995 to 2019. 

Importers of dairy products have paid assessments to the Dairy Research and Promotion Program 

since August 2011. Total import assessment funds varied between $3.44 million and $4.76 

million per year between 2012 and 2020, averaging $3.93 million. The import assessment 

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

and the QPs. 

Imported cheese levels were higher by 1.38 million pounds based on promotion funds collected 

from importers. Unit values of cheese imports amounted to roughly $3.20 per pound on average 

over the period between 2012 and 2020. Hence, incremental revenue to importers solely from 

cheese attributable to the import assessment (on cheese) totaled roughly $4.42 million. These 

results are in alignment with those in the previous Report to Congress. 

Available expenditure data from DMI and MilkPEP also allow for the calculation of separate 

BCRs at the farm level for the two groups. The BCR associated with DMI spending was 

estimated to be 5.43, higher than the 4.30 return on investment for all dairy product promotion 

investments. The BCR for MilkPEP was estimated to be 1.89, very similar to the 1.91 figure 

previously reported for all fluid milk promotional spending. In the previous Report to Congress, 

the BCR associated with DMI spending was calculated to be 5.59, while the BCR associated 

with MilkPEP spending was calculated to be 3.28. 

The BCR of fluid milk at the processor level was estimated to be 2.84 over the period 1995 to 

2020. Importantly, this measure captures the gross return on investment for fluid milk market 

participants beyond the farm level. Any additional costs incurred by these market participants 

from handling the larger volume of fluid milk that occurs due to MilkPEP promotion are 

excluded because we simply do not know the magnitude of these additional costs. Further, others 

in the marketing channel besides fluid milk processors capture a portion of this return too. But 

we have no knowledge of the portion captured by processors versus other milk market 

participants beyond the farm gate. Because of these caveats, we exercise caution in providing 

this estimate of the BCR attributed to the promotion of fluid milk at the processor level. In the 

previous Report to Congress, this BCR was calculated to be 5.61. 

15 
 

 

 

 

 

Caution must be exercised in making comparisons from various Reports to Congress across 

years. The economic phrase/condition, ceteris paribus, meaning “all other factors invariant,” 

does not hold. The underlying endogenous and exogenous variables that come from various 

government sources have been revised and updated, and now four additional quarters of data are 

available not only pertaining to these variables but also pertaining to the data associated with the 

programmatic expenditures of the National Programs. 

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 in the quantitative 

appraisal. 

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 years, DMI changed its marketing strategies to focus 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 coinvestment 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 2020 are depicted in Table 3-1 and in Figure 3-1. On average, roughly $371 million in total 

were spent annually by the respective entities over this period and between nearly $390 million 

and $415 million since 2011. In 2020, promotion program expenditures amounted to slightly less 

than $390 million. 

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

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

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

assumed to be like 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 

16 
 

 

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. 

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

(MilkPEP), and Qualified Program (QP) Promotion Program Expenditures, 1995 to 20201 

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 $390,736 

2013 $93,184 $89,633 $216,844 $399,662 

2014 $102,728 $83,426 $211,919 $398,074 

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 

2018 $115,442 $80,817 $207,903 $404,163 

2019 $109,287 $76,429 $216,867 $402,583 

2020 $119,340 $66,712 $203,544 $389,595 

Mean $96,075 $86,805 $188,122 $371,001 

Median $95,135 $91,961 $181,768 $367,517 

Std Dev $11,028 $15,530 $23,289 $30,760 

Min $73,067 $38,690 $158,348 $292,592 

Max $119,340 $101,850 $227,834 $415,404 

1

Thousands of dollars. 

Source: Data from Dairy Management Inc., Milk Processor Education Program, and U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

17 
 

I ----- -- ____ ., --- .,,,,.-- .... --, / 

.... --- ., 

•••• 

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

(MilkPEP), and Qualified Program (QP) Promotion Expenditures, 1995 to 2020 

$250,000 

$200,000 

$150,000 

$50,000 

$100,000 

$0 

DMI MilkPEP QPs 

Source: Data from Dairy Management Inc., Milk Processor Education Program, and U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

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 2020 

are exhibited in Figure 3-2. These demand-enhancing expenditures varied from $54.2 million to 

$99.4 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 2020 are exhibited in Figure 3-3. Over that 

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

ranged from roughly $19.6 million to $63.3 million per quarter and averaged $33.4 million per 

quarter. 

As exhibited in Figure 3-4, over the period 1995 to 2020, nominal seasonally adjusted demandenhancing expenditures for cheese averaged $15.6 million per quarter, ranging from $8.0 million 

to $27.7 million. 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, averaging $12.0 million during this 

period. From the fourth quarter of 2008 through the end of 2019, nominal quarterly expenditures 

on cheese marketing and promotion activities ranged from $8.0 million to $17.1 million, 

averaging $11.7 million per quarter. 

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 

close to $1.4 million per quarter over the period 1995 to 2020. Marketing and promotion 

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

18 
 

 

 

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

promotions to broader campaigns that relate to several 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. 

Programmatic expenditures include a pro-rata share of non-specific promotion efforts. 

DMI also invests in dairy export promotion through the U.S. Dairy Export Council. Nominal 

seasonally adjusted DMI expenditures directed to dairy export promotion on a quarterly basis 

ranged from just under $800 to approximately $7.0 million (Figure 3-6a). These expenditures 

trended upward from 1995 to 2020, averaging about $2.9 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 varied from just under $314,000 

to about $2.4 million, averaging nearly $1.2 million per quarter over the period of 1997 to 2020. 

The funds are awarded through USDA, FAS’s 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 $9.0 million per quarter, averaging close to 

$4.0 million on a quarterly basis over the same period from 1995 to 2020 (Figure 3-6c). 

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

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

Qualified Programs (QPs), 1995 to 2020* 

$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. 

19 
 

 

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 2020 

$70,000,000 

$10,000,000 

$0 

$20,000,000 

$30,000,000 

$40,000,000 

$50,000,000 

$60,000,000 

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

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

Management Inc. (DMI) and Qualified Programs (QPs), 1995 to 2020 

$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. 

20 
 

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

by Dairy Management Inc. (DMI) and Qualified Programs (QPs), 1995 to 2020 

$8,000,000 

$7,000,000 

$6,000,000 

$5,000,000 

$4,000,000 

$3,000,000 

$2,000,000 

$1,000,000 

$0 

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

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

Dairy Management Inc. (DMI), 1995 to 2020 

$8,000,000 

$7,000,000 

$6,000,000 

$5,000,000 

$4,000,000 

$3,000,000 

$2,000,000 

$1,000,000 

$0 

Source: Data from DMI. Calculations by the authors. 

21 
 

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

through the Foreign Market Development/Market Access Programs, 1997 to 2020* 

$2,500,000 

$500,000 

$1,000,000 

$1,500,000 

$2,000,000 

$0 

*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. 

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 to 2020 

$10,000,000 

$9,000,000 

$8,000,000 

$7,000,000 

$6,000,000 

$5,000,000 

$4,000,000 

$3,000,000 

$2,000,000 

$1,000,000 

$0 

Source: Calculations by authors. 

22 
 

 

$500,000 

$400,000 

$300,000 

$200,000 

$100,000 

$0 

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

Research Program effective August 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 are allocated to the National Dairy Board. The remaining 

amount can be 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, collected on a monthly basis, totaled between 

$3.44 million and $4.76 million per year from 2012 to 2020, averaging $3.93 million. The 

cumulative import assessment funds totaled $36.44 million from September 2011 to December 

2020. Funds from the dairy import assessment ranged from $210,086 to $493,975 per month, 

averaging $325,397 per month over the period of September 2011 to December 2020 (Figure 3-

7). The import assessment averaged just under 1.0 percent of the total demand-enhancing 

expenditures made by DMI, MilkPEP, and the QPs between 2012 and 2020. 

Figure 3-7. Monthly Dairy Import Assessment Funds, September 2011 to December 2020 

$600,000 

Sep-11 

Jan-12 

May-12 

Sep-12 

Jan-13 

May-13 

Sep-13 

Jan-14 

May-14 

Sep-14 

Jan-15 

May-15 

Sep-15 

Jan-16 

May-16 

Sep-16 

Jan-17 

May-17 

Sep-17 

Jan-18 

May-18 

Sep-18 

Jan-19 

May-19 

Sep-19 

Jan-20 

May-20 

Sep-20 

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture 

23 
 

 

Trends in Dairy Use 

Per capita fluid milk consumption trended downward between 1995 and 2020 (Figure 3-8). In 

2020, quarterly per capita consumption of fluid milk ranged from 33.56 to 36.32 pounds per 

person, down from 50.44 to 53.20 pounds per person in 1995. Seasonality also is evident in per 

capita U.S. consumption of fluid milk. The downward trend likely reflects changes in the 

frequency of fluid milk intake rather than changes in portions (Stewart, Dong, and Carlson, 

2013; and Stewart, Kuchler, Dong, and Cessna, 2021). Most 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. Annual U.S. per capita milk consumption has declined 

roughly 37 percent since 1995 largely 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 2020, the commercial per capita disappearance of cheese ranged from 6.42 

pounds to 10.10 pounds per quarter, averaging close to 8.2 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 0.89 to 1.88 pounds per quarter, averaging 1.26 pounds. 

On average over the period 1995 to 2020, the per capita commercial disappearance of all dairy 

products on a fat basis averaged 152.89 pounds per quarter, ranging from 136.58 pounds to 

173.95 pounds per quarter (Figure 3-11). On a skim-solids basis, the per capita commercial 

disappearance of all dairy products over that same period averaged 136.84 pounds per quarter, 

ranging from 130.41 pounds to 143.28 pounds per quarter (Figure 3-12). 

Between 1995 and 2020, quarterly dairy exports on a fat basis averaged 1,472 pounds and 

averaged 6,168 pounds on a skim-solids basis (Figure 3-13). 

The United States imported between $2.825 billion and $3.523 billion in dairy products annually 

from 2012 to 2020 (Table 3-2). Cheese products accounted for 34.40 percent to 43.53 percent 

(by value) of all dairy imports (Figure 3-14). Cheese imports as a percentage of total dairy 

imports were highest in 2018 at 43.53 percent and lowest in 2012 at 34.40 percent. 

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. 

24 
Figure 3-8. Quarterly Per Capita U.S. Consumption of Fluid Milk, 1995 to 2020 

55.00 

35.00 

40.00 

45.00 

50.00 

Pounds 

30.00 

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Figure 3-9. Quarterly Per Capita U.S. Consumption of Cheese, 1995 to 2020 

11.00 

7.00 

8.00 

9.00 

10.00 

Pounds 

6.00 

5.00 

4.00 

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

25 
' - 1-

I- - -

~ -

r~-~ r~

,J 

.. 

-o-~ ' l~nA\.J _, - ,- = ~ ~ 

' I 

~ ~j J J 

' V , .. ~ 

~ ~ ' ' ~ 

Figure 3-10. Quarterly Per Capita U.S. Consumption of Butter, 1995 to 2020 

2.00 

1.00 

1.20 

1.40 

1.60 

1.80 

Pounds 

0.80 

0.60 

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 2020 

175.00 

135.00 

140.00 

145.00 

150.00 

155.00 

160.00 

165.00 

170.00 

Pounds 

130.00 

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

26 
Figure 3-12. Quarterly Per Capita U.S. Consumption of All Dairy Products on a Skim-Solids 

Basis, 1995 to 2020 

145.00 

130.00 

135.00 

140.00 

Pounds 

125.00 

120.00 

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 2020 

14000 

12000 

10000 

Million Pounds 8000 

6000 

4000 

2000 

0 

Milk-Equivalent Fat Basis Skim Solids Basis 

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

27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- 

Table 3-2. U.S. Dairy Product Imports and Import Assessment Funds, 2012 to 20201 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 

Value of All 

Dairy Imports 

($1,000) 

$3,177,044 $3,192,644 $3,523,668 $3,492,601 $3,437,642 $2,825,985 $2,938,045 $3,108,168 $3,236,291 

Value of Cheese 

Imports 

($1,000) 

$1,093,027 $1,145,001 $1,274,747 $1,290,785 $1,262,798 $1,179,103 $1,279,041 $1,307,877 $1,192,831 

Quantity of 

Cheese Imports, 

(metric tons) 

153,964 147,195 164,778 197,768 205,286 182,400 176,167 179,776 165,790 

Unit Value of 

Cheese Imports 

($/MT) 

$7,099 $7,779 $7,736 $6,527 $6,157 $6,464 $7,260 $7,275 $7,195 

Import 

Assessment 

Funds ($) 

$3,521,054 $3,441,461 $3,564,781 $4,175,783 $4,757,469 $4,205,885 $3,803,099 $4,000,574 $3,917,344 

Import 

Assessment per 

$1,000 of dairy 

imports 

$1.11 $1.08 $1.01 $1.20 $1.38 $1.49 $1.29 $1.29 $1.21 

1 The import assessment went into effect August 1, 2011. Funds have been collected in each month from September 2011 to present. The table 

shows funds collected from January 2012 to December 2020. 

Source: Import assessment data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA’s) Agricultural Marketing Service. Trade data from USDA’s 

Foreign Agricultural Service. 

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

to 2020 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

45 

50 

$0 

$500,000 

$1,000,000 

$1,500,000 

$2,000,000 

$2,500,000 

$3,000,000 

$3,500,000 

$4,000,000 

Percentage Value 

$1,000 dollars 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 

Cheese Share of Dairy Import Value Total Dairy Import Value, $1,000 

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

28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

Estimation of Dairy Consumption and Export Changes Due to Promotion Program Expenditures 

This evaluation study finds a statistically significant positive association between dairy 

promotion program expenditures and demand for dairy products. This association holds for all 

dairy products in the aggregate as well as for fluid milk, cheese, and butter. 

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% 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. 

Demand-enhancing expenditures have a statistically significant positive impact on domestic 

commercial disappearance of fluid milk, cheese, butter, and the aggregate of all dairy products as 

well as on dairy exports. 

The promotion elasticities for butter, cheese, and fluid milk for 2020 were on average 0.045, 

0.012, and 0.040, respectively. The promotion elasticities for all dairy products on a skim-solids 

basis and on a fat basis for 2020 were on average 0.058 and 0.047, respectively. Except for the 

promotion elasticity of fluid milk, this set of estimates aligns well with those reported in the 

previous Report to Congress based on data from 1995 to 2019. 

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 two quarters. The effect on fluid milk persisted for up to eight quarters and on 

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

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 

29 
 

 

 

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

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

expenditure elasticity was estimated to be statistically significant at 0.058 over the sample period 

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

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

significant at 0.093 (Table 3-3). 

Simulation Analysis of the Market Effects of Dairy Promotion 

The analysis covers the period of 1995 to 2020. The results are decomposed for comparison 

purposes into four time periods: (1) 1995 to 2000, (2) 2001 to 2006, (3) 2007 to 2013, and 

(4) 2014 to 2020. 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 2020 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 and Table 3-5. 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. 

These results indicate that the overall downward trend of per capita fluid milk consumption 

between 1995 and 2020 was mitigated to some extent by the promotional efforts of the National 

Programs. Without the promotion programs, fluid milk consumption would have averaged 

177.04 pounds per capita instead of the 191.10 pounds per capita that actually occurred over the 

1995 to 2020 period with promotion. Hence, promotion expenditures associated with the 

National Programs spending on fluid milk reduced the rate of decline in per capita consumption, 

controlling for all other factors. 

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 

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. 

30 
 

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 2020 

Promotion Elasticities Own-Price Income 

1995 to 2020 2020 only Elasticity Elasticity 

Butter 0.041 0.045 -0.046 0.397 

Cheese 0.017 0.012 -0.139 0.407 

Fluid milk 0.055 0.040 -0.038 -0.162 

All dairy 

Skim-solids basis 0.067 0.058 -0.075 0.106 

Fat basis 0.054 0.047 -0.071 0.393 

Exports 

Skim-solids basis 0.058 0.058 -0.203 0.604 

Fat basis 0.093 0.093 -0.277 0.644 

As shown in Table 3-4, the average per capita domestic consumption of fluid milk, cheese, and 

butter was higher by 7.9 percent, 3.9 percent, and 5.3 percent, respectively, over the period of 

1995 to 2020 due to promotion efforts, all other exogenous factors held constant. The average 

per capita consumption of nonfat dry milk (NFDM) would have been 3.08 pounds per capita 

annually without promotion versus 3.13 pounds per capita as actually occurred with promotion 

over the 1995 to 2020 period, an increase of 1.6 percent. 

The results also indicate that the annual per capita domestic consumption of cheese would have 

averaged 31.26 pounds without promotion versus the 32.48 pounds as actually occurred with 

promotion over 1995 to 2020. For butter, per capita consumption would have averaged 4.75 

pounds without promotion versus the 5.01 pounds that occurred with promotion over the same 

period. Table 3-5 shows exports of butter were lower by 24.3 percent, while exports of cheese 

were up by 5.0 percent over the same period because of the promotion programs. Exports of 

nonfat dry milk were up by a mere 0.1 percent over the period 1995 to 2020 due to the promotion 

programs. 

31 
Table 3-4. Effects of Dairy Promotion on U.S. Dairy Markets Based on Simulation of Supply 

Response – Per Capita Consumption 

Fluid Milk 

Per Capita 

Consumption 

(pounds) 

Cheese 

Per Capita 

Consumption 

(pounds) 

Butter 

Per Capita 

Consumption 

(pounds) 

Nonfat Dry Milk 

Per Capita 

Consumption 

(pounds) 

Period 

With Promotion (lbs) 166.73 37.00 5.88 2.94 

20 - 14 2020 

No Promotion (lbs) 

Change (lbs) 

155.33 

11.40 

35.57 

1.43 

5.50 

0.38 

2.86 

0.08 

Percent Change 7.3% 4.0% 6.7% 2.8% 

With Promotion (lbs) 193.95 33.06 5.14 3.23 

2007 – 2013

No Promotion (lbs) 

Change (lbs) 

178.25 

14.13 

31.72 

1.34 

4.86 

0.28 

3.16 

0.07 

Percent Change 7.9% 4.2% 5.8% 2.2% 

With Promotion (lbs) 199.97 30.99 4.49 3.23 

2001 – 2006

No Promotion (lbs) 

Change (lbs) 

184.70 

15.27 

29.83 

1.16 

4.33 

0.17 

3.19 

0.04 

Percent Change 8.3% 3.9% 3.8% 0.9% 

With Promotion (lbs) 209.18 28.02 4.35 3.15 

19 - 95 2000 

No Promotion (lbs) 

Change (lbs) 

193.30 

15.88 

27.14 

0.88 

4.18 

0.17 

3.15 

0.00 

Percent Change 8.2% 3.2% 3.8% 0.0% 

With Promotion (lbs) 191.10 32.48 5.01 3.13 

19 - 95 2020 

No Promotion (lbs) 

Change (lbs) 

177.04 

14.06 

31.26 

1.22 

4.75 

0.26 

3.08 

0.05 

Percent Change 7.9% 3.9% 5.3% 1.6% 

Source: Calculation by the authors. 

32 
 

Table 3-5. Effects of Dairy Promotion on U.S. Dairy Markets Based on Simulation of Supply 

Response – Butter, Cheese, and Nonfat Dry Milk Exports 

Source: Calculation by the authors. 

Cheese Exports 

(million lb) 

Butter Exports 

(million lb) 

Nonfat Dry Milk Exports 

(million lb) 

Period 

2014 – 2020 

With Promotion 746.81 56.35 1,425.35 

No Promotion 716.25 70.00 1,352.56 

Change 30.56 -13.65 72.79 

Percent Change 4.3% -19.5% 5.4% 

2007 – 2013 

With Promotion 413.75 108.09 843.38 

No Promotion 392.69 123.83 831.65 

Change 21.06 -15.74 11.73 

Percent Change 5.4% -12.7% 1.4% 

2001 – 2006 

With Promotion 125.85 7.96 242.91 

No Promotion 113.41 23.71 266.07 

Change 12.44 -15.75 -23.16 

Percent Change 11.0% -66.4% -8.7% 

1995 – 2000 

With Promotion 73.00 11.70 8.32 

No Promotion 72.11 29.71 80.92 

Change 0.89 -18.01 -72.60 

Percent Change 1.2% -60.6% -89.7% 

1995 – 2020 

With Promotion 358.35 48.81 668.79 

No Promotion 341.37 64.51 668.13 

Change 16.98 -15.70 0.66 

Percent Change 5.0% -24.3% 0.1% 

What then is the impact of the assessment on imports of dairy products? Given that cheese 

occupies a notable share of imported dairy products, we focus attention on the incremental 

amount of imports of cheese attributed to the importer assessment. Over the period 2012 to 2020, 

total cheese consumption in the United States amounted to 110.634 billion pounds. Because of 

the assessment from importers, total domestic cheese consumption was higher by roughly 55 

million pounds. To arrive at this figure, we multiply 110.634 billion pounds by the percentage 

change in cheese consumption because of the importer assessment (0.05 percent as noted 

previously). Further, because cheese imports are roughly 2.5 percent of domestic consumption 

(United States Department of Agriculture), then due to promotion funds collected from 

importers, imported cheese levels were higher by 1.38 million pounds. Further, unit values of 

cheese imports amounted to roughly $3.20 per pound on average annually between 2012 to 2020. 

Hence, incremental revenue to importers solely from cheese attributed to the import assessment 

totaled about $4.42 million. 

33 
 

 

 

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 previously. As calculated, the producer profit BCR is the additional 

profit to the dairy industry (additional cash receipts net of additional production costs and 

promotion assessments) earned by producers because of the promotion expenditures (as 

measured through the scenario analyses) divided by the historical level of promotion 

expenditures made to generate those 

Table 3-6. Calculated Benefit-Cost Ratios additional profits. The fluid milk processor 

(BCRs) at the Producer Level Attributed to the BCR is calculated similarly to the producer 

National Programs, 1995 to 2020 BCR in which the cost of milk is used as a 

proxy for the cost of production since data 

Producers pertaining to the cost of production for fluid 

milk processors are not available. 

Product BCR 

Based on the results exhibited in Table 3-4 

All Dairy 4.30 and 3-5, the answer to the key question 

posed earlier regarding the National Fluid milk 1.91 Programs, as it relates to the analyzed 

Cheese 3.27 products, is that these programs have 

effectively increased the demand of Butter 24.11 promoted dairy products. 

Exports 7.43 

As exhibited in Table 3-6, over the period 

Other Non-Specific Dairy Promotion 6.93 1995 to 2020, 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 $1.91 for every dollar 

invested in dairy demand promotion, for cheese $3.27 for every dollar invested, and for butter 

$24.11 for every dollar invested. For other non-specific dairy promotion activities, the BCR was 

calculated to be $6.93 for every dollar invested. Dairy export promotion expenditures increased 

foreign demand for U.S. dairy products by $7.43 for every dollar invested. For the aggregate of all 

dairy products, the net profit BCR is $4.30 for every dollar invested. These BCRs or returns on 

investment (ROIs), except for fluid milk, correspond well with those reported in the previous Report to 

Congress. The BCR for fluid milk was previously reported to be 3.26. 

Available expenditure data for the two participating entities in dairy promotion, DMI and 

MilkPEP, also allows for the calculation of separate BCRs at the farm level 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 

have largely focused on promotion programs for fluid milk, cheese, butter, non-delineated 

products, and exports. By contrast, MilkPEP promotion expenditures have targeted fluid milk 

exclusively. The scenario simulation results indicate that the BCR associated with DMI spending 

only was calculated to be 5.43, higher than the 4.30 return on investment shown in Table 3-6 for 

all dairy product promotion investments. The BCR associated with MilkPEP spending only was 

calculated at 1.89, nearly identical to the 1.91 return calculated for all fluid milk promotional 

spending in Table 3-6. Recall that DMI demand-enhancing expenditures relate not only to fluid 

34 
 

 

 

 

 

milk but also to butter, cheese, other dairy products, and exports. MilkPEP demand-enhancing 

expenditures on the other hand relate only to fluid milk. As such, the respective calculated BCRs 

are in alignment with a priori expectations. In the previous Report to Congress, the BCR 

associated with DMI spending was calculated to be 5.59, while the BCR associated with 

MilkPEP spending was calculated to be 3.28. 

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, we use the cost of 

milk as a proxy for cost of production. The rationale for the use of this proxy is simply that the 

largest input processing cost is the cost of milk. The BCR for fluid milk at the processor level 

was estimated to be 2.84 over the period between 1995 and 2020. Importantly, this measure 

captures the gross return on investment for fluid milk market participants beyond the farm gate. 

Any additional costs incurred by these market participants from handling the larger volume of 

fluid milk that occurs due to MilkPEP promotion are excluded because we simply do not know 

the magnitude of these additional costs. Further, others in the marketing channel besides fluid 

milk processors capture a portion of this incremental total value too. But we have no knowledge 

of the portion captured by processors versus other milk market participants beyond the farm gate. 

As such, we exercise caution because of these caveats in providing this estimate of the BCR 

attributed to the promotion of fluid milk at the processor level over the 1995 to 2020 period. In 

the previous Report to Congress, this BCR was calculated to be 5.61. 

Caution must be exercised in making comparisons from various Reports to Congress across 

years. The economic phrase/condition, ceteris paribus, meaning all other factors invariant, does 

not hold. The underlying endogenous and exogenous variables which come from various 

government sources have been revised and updated, and now four additional quarters of data are 

available not only pertaining to these variables but also pertaining to the data associated with the 

programmatic expenditures of the National Programs. 

Concluding Remarks3 

This report provides an independent evaluation of the effectiveness of the National Programs 

covering the period 1995 to 2020. 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 change in profit net 

of costs) of the dairy producer promotion program was calculated to be 4.30. That is, for 

every $1 spent on demand-enhancing activities, dairy producers received an additional $4.30. 

• The National Programs promotion spending over 1995 through 2020 enhanced per capita 

consumption of dairy products and cheese exports: 

3 A reference list is available upon request. 

35 
 

 

 

 

 

 

o Fluid milk per capita +7.9 percent 

o Cheese per capita +3.9 percent 

o Butter per capita +5.3 percent 

o Nonfat dry milk per capita +1.6 percent 

o Butter exports -24.3 percent 

o Cheese exports +5.0 percent 

o Nonfat dry milk exports +0.1 percent 

• Promotion funds collected from importers boosted the annual average level of cheese imports 

by 1.38 million pounds. Annual unit values of cheese imports amounted to about $3.20 per 

pound over the period from 2012 to 2020. Hence, the incremental revenue to importers solely 

from cheese attributable to the expenditure of the import assessments for cheese promotion 

totaled roughly $4.42 million. 

• The BCR for fluid milk promotion was calculated to be $1.91 for every dollar invested in 

demand-enhancing activities. For cheese promotion, the BCR was calculated to be $3.27 per 

dollar invested in cheese promotion and $24.11 for every dollar invested in butter promotion. 

The BCR for dairy export promotion was calculated to be $7.43 per dollar invested. 

Regarding 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. 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)—was 

modified to include the statistical results of the dairy demand statistical analysis and then aligned 

with the observed data over the 1995 to 2020 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’s 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. 

Dairy markets were disrupted in 2020 due to the pandemic associated with COVID-19. Because 

our data were quarterly, ending in December 2020, we did not believe we had sufficient data to 

properly account for the pandemic. Going forward in future evaluations of the effectiveness of 

the National Programs, we plan to account for the disruptions in dairy markets attributed to the 

pandemic. 

36 
 

 

 

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 Order. To 

receive certification, the Qualified Program must meet the following criteria (7 CFR §1150.153): 

1. Conduct activities intended to increase human consumption of milk and dairy products 

generally; 

2. Be active and ongoing before passage of the Dairy Act, except for programs operated 

under the laws of the United States or any State and except for importer programs; 

3. Be 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 that 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 2020 was $299 

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 2020. 

37 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Qualified State, Regional or Importer 

Dairy Product Promotion, Research or Nutrition Education Programs 

Aggregate Income and Expenditure Data Reported to USDA, 2020 

(Thousands) 

Aggregate Income FY 2020 

Carryover from Previous Year 1 $83,927 

Producer Remittances 223,653 

Transfers from Other Qualified Programs 86,790 

Transfers to Other Qualified Programs (102,631) 

Other Income 7,822 

Total Adjusted Annual Income $299,561 

Aggregate Expenditures FY 2020 

General and Administrative $10,750 

Milk Advertising and Promotion 11,457 

Cheese Advertising and Promotion 29,595 

Butter Advertising and Promotion 6,176 

Frozen Dairy Products Advertising and Promotion 3,380 

Other Advertising and Promotion 2 5,060 

Unified Marketing Plan 3 85,311 

Dairy Foods and Nutrition Research 7,861 

Public and Industry Communications 19,649 

Nutrition Education 13,932 

Market and Economic Research 4,439 

Other 5,535 

Total Annual Expenditures $203,145 

Total Available for Future Year Programs $94,165 

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 

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. 

38 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Qualified State, Regional or Importer 

Dairy Product Promotion, Research or Nutrition Education Programs, 2020 

Alabama: 

American Dairy Association of Alabama 

(Dairy Alliance) 

Arizona: 

Dairy Council of Arizona (Dairy 

Management West) 

California: 

California Milk Advisory Board 

Dairy Council of California 

Connecticut: 

Connecticut Milk Promotion Board 

Florida: 

Florida Dairy Farmers, Inc. 

Georgia: 

Georgia Agricultural Commodity 

Commission for Milk 

Southeast United Dairy Industry Association 

(Dairy Alliance) 

American Dairy Association of Georgia 

(Dairy Alliance) 

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 

(Dairy Alliance) 

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) 

New England Dairy Promotion Board 

(New England Dairy) 

Michigan: 

American Dairy Association of Michigan 

Dairy Council of Michigan 

Michigan Dairy Market Program 

Minnesota: 

Midwest Dairy Association (Midwest Dairy) 

Midwest Dairy Council (Midwest Dairy) 

Minnesota Dairy Research and Promotion 

Council (Midwest Dairy) 

Mississippi: 

American Dairy Association of Mississippi 

(Dairy Alliance) 

Missouri: 

Dairy Promotion, Inc. 

Promotion Services, Inc. 

St. Louis District Dairy Council 

Nebraska: 

Nebraska Dairy Industry Development 

Board (Midwest Dairy) 

Nevada: 

Dairy Council of Nevada (Dairy 

Management West) 

39 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Hampshire: 

Granite State Dairy Promotion 

New Jersey: 

New Jersey Dairy Industry Advisory 

Council 

New York: 

American Dairy Association & Dairy 

Council, (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. 

(American Dairy Association Northeast) 

North Carolina: 

American Dairy Association of North 

Carolina (Dairy Alliance) 

North Dakota: 

North Dakota Dairy Promotion Commission 

(Midwest Dairy) 

Ohio: 

American Dairy Association Mideast 

Oregon: 

Oregon Dairy Products Commission 

Pennsylvania: 

Allied Milk Producers' Cooperative. 

Mid-Atlantic Dairy Association 

(American Dairy Association Northeast) 

Pennsylvania Dairy Promotion Program 

(American Dairy Association Northeast) 

Puerto Rico, Commonwealth of: 

Milk Industry Development Fund of Puerto 

Rico (Fondo Fomento Industria Lechera) 

South Carolina: 

American Dairy Association of South 

Carolina (Dairy Alliance) 

South Dakota: 

American Dairy Association of South 

Dakota (Midwest Dairy) 

Tennessee: 

American Dairy Association of Tennessee 

(Dairy Alliance) 

Tennessee Dairy Promotion Committee 

(Dairy Alliance) 

Texas: 

Dairy MAX, Inc. 

Western Dairy Association (Dairy MAX, 

Inc., Inactive) 

Southwest Dairy Museum, Inc. 

(Southwest Dairy Farmers, Southland Dairy 

Farmers) 

Utah: 

Utah Dairy Commission (Dairy West) 

Vermont: 

Vermont Dairy Promotion Council 

Virginia: 

American Dairy Association of Virginia 

(Dairy Alliance) 

Washington: 

Washington State Dairy Council 

(Dairy Farmers of Washington) 

Washington Dairy Products 

(Dairy Farmers of Washington) 

Wisconsin: 

Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board 

(Dairy Farmers of Wisconsin) 

Qualified Importer Programs: 

Cheese Importers Association of America 

(Importer) 

Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board (Dairy 

Farmers of Wisconsin) 

Global Dairy Platform (Importer) 

40 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dairy Management Inc. and U.S. Dairy Export Council 

Contracts Approved by USDA, 2020 

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 

84.51, LLC [P] 

Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics [N] 

Agile City Winston-Salem [B] 

Agribusiness-Connect Asia [E] 

Allende and Brea Sociedad Civil [E] 

American Academy of Pediatrics [N] 

American Butter Institute [U] 

American Dairy Association Indiana, Inc. [U] 

American Eagle.com [B] 

American Society for Nutrition [N] 

American-Mexican Marketing [E] 

Aon Consulting, Inc. [B] 

Arab Marketing Finance, Inc. [E] 

Armano Design Group [C] 

Arochi & Lindner, S.C. [K] 

Artisanal Touch Events, LLC [I] 

Associated Milk Producers, Inc. [P] 

AVID Intellectual Property Law [B] 

Bader Rutter and Associates, Inc. [C, E, S] 

Baird, Spencer [Co] 

Baxter Communications, Inc. [C] 

Bethany Yon [Co] 

Black Sea Consulting, LLC [K] 

Black Swan Data Ltd. [K] 

Bliming and Associates, Inc. [E] 

Bobo, Jack [Co] 

Bovina Mountain Consulting LLC [B] 

Brainyak Inc. dba GutCheck [C] 

Brandteam Partners, LLC [C] 

CadmiumCD, LLC [S] 

Cady, Roger [Co] 

Castlewood Strategies, LLC [N] 

CFE Solutions, Inc. [Co] 

Chase Nutrition Services, LLC [N] 

CNS Media [C] 

College & Professional Sports Dieticians [N] 

ConferenceDirect, LLC [B] 

Costco Wholesale Corporation [B, K] 

Cowboy Media Productions, LLC [C, E] 

CRA Inc. [C] 

Craigson Innovation Group, LLC [K] 

Culinary Sales Support, Inc. [I] 

CustomED [C] 

Czymmek, Karl [Co] 

Dairy Council of Utah [U] 

Dairy Farmers of America [P] 

Dairy Girl Network [B] 

Dairy Insights, LLC [Co, E] 

Dairy Max, Inc. [U] 

Darigold, Inc. [P] 

David S. Smith America, Inc. 

d/b/a Worldwide Dispensers [Co] 

Davies Collison Cave Pty, Ltd [K] 

Delahoyde Projects [C] 

Digital SpeakEasy, LLC [C, S] 

Discovery Education, Inc. [C] 

Domino’s Pizza Enterprises – Japan [E] 

Domino’s Pizza Enterprises – Oceania [E] 

Domino’s Pizza, LLC [P] 

Dorantes Advisors [K] 

Dr. Siti Noorbaiyah Abdul Malek [Co] 

DuPuis Group [C, F] 

Dutcher & Associates, LLC [C] 

EarthShift Global, LLC [S] 

EAS Consulting Group [I] 

Eastern Trade Media Pte, Ltd [C] 

Edelman Public Relations Worldwide [C, 60] 

Ernst & Young Global Limited [B] 

Euromonitor International [E] 

Exponent, Inc. [K] 

Farm Journal Foundation [B] 

Feeding America [P] 

41 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fleishman-Hillard, Inc. [C] 

Florida Dairy Farmers, Inc. [U] 

Food Allergy Research and Education [N] 

Food Research and Action Center [N] 

FoodMinds, A Division of Padilla Speer 

Beardsley, Inc. [E, I] 

Foodsense, LLC [C, N] 

FreshAgenda Pty, Ltd [I] 

Gaalswyk, Dennis [Co] 

Global Dairy Platform, Inc. [C] 

GlobalData Plc (Canadean Consumer) [E, K] 

Godfrey & Kahn S.C. [K] 

Golin Harris International, Inc. [C] 

Great Valley Publishing Company [N] 

Harbor Environmental [S] 

Hartman Group [K] 

Hebrew Rehabilitation Center [K] 

HGC Studio, LLC [C] 

Hickey, Bob [Co] 

Hillstrom Communications, Inc. [C] 

Hodges, Heather [Co] 

Hruska, Cindy [B, E] 

Hubert Company [B] 

Hudson Grey Sky Productions, LLC [C] 

Hutchinson Cancer Research Center [K] 

Imperial Marketing Concepts, Inc. [C] 

Information Resources, Inc. [B] 

Inmar Analytics, Inc. [K] 

Innova Market Insights [K] 

Institute for the Future [K] 

International Dairy Foods Association [B, K] 

IntNet (South Korea) [E] 

Ipsos Insights, LLC [I] 

ISOS Group, LLC [S] 

JF Pontzer, LLC [C] 

Jiangnan University [K] 

Johnson, Rachel [Co] 

Joslin Diabetes Center, Inc. [N] 

Kantar, LLC d/b/a Kantar TNS [C] 

Kantar Retail d/b/a Kantar Worldpanel [K] 

Keenan, Judy [Co] 

Kentucky Fried Chicken International 

Holdings, LLC [P] 

KJ Marketing Consulting [60] 

Koski, Shannon [C, E] 

Land O'Lakes, Inc. [P] 

Lee, Jay [Co] 

Leombruni, Lisa [Co] 

Leverette, Weekes & Co., Inc. [B] 

Lieberman Research Worldwide, Inc. [C] 

Lux Research, Inc. [F] 

Maine Dairy Promotion Board [U] 

Mandell, Laura [Co] 

Market Makers, Inc. [E] 

MB Clinical Research and Consulting, LLC

[K] 

McClelland, Alyssa [Co] 

McDonald’s USA, LLC [P] 

Meltwater [C] 

Meros Consulting [Co] 

Messina Group, Inc. [B] 

Mintel Group, Ltd. [K] 

MMS Education, Inc. [C, N, 60] 

Morris, James [Co] 

MSL Global Singapore [E] 

National Football League Players, Inc. [60] 

National Football League Properties [60] 

National Milk Producers Federation [E, K] 

National Strength and Conditioning 

Association [K] 

Natural Marketing Institute [K] 

New England Dairy & Food Council, Inc. [U] 

Nielsen Holdings, Inc. [K] 

Novak Birch [C, E] 

NPD Group, Inc. [K] 

Nutrition Impact, LLC [N] 

Nutrition Insights, LLC [N] 

Nutritional Strategies, Inc. [N] 

Nygaard Consulting, LLC [E, K] 

O’Donohue, Katherine [Co] 

On the Go Marketing, Corp. [F] 

Orrani Consulting, Ltd. [E, K] 

Package InSight, LLC [F] 

Papa John's International, Inc., 

d/b/a Papa Johns [P] 

Paradox Nutrition, LLC [I] 

Parenti Partners dba Culinary Garage [C] 

Paustian, Keith [Co] 

Pizza Hut, LLC [P] 

Pizza Hut Restaurants Asia Pte., Ltd. [P] 

PR Consultants Limited [E] 

Prime Consulting of Florida [F] 

42 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Public Policy Asia [E] 

Quaife, Tom [Co] 

RB International [Co] 

Ready Ink Communications [C, E] 

Renee Comet Photography, LLC [C] 

Research Resources [I] 

Results Direct [C, E] 

Rise Interactive Media & Analytics, LLC [C] 

River Global, LLC [E] 

Rogers, Paul [Co, E] 

RTI International [N] 

Ruby Do, Inc. [C] 

Rudder Library Services [B] 

Rudder, Donna [Co] 

Salesforce.com, Inc. [B] 

Shainwright Consulting & Research Group 

[E] 

Shamrock Farms [P] 

Shamrock Foods Company [P] 

Sheryl Stern Sachman & Associates, LLC

[N] 

Shiftology Communication [C] 

Sidley Austin, LLP [K] 

Significant Outcomes [E] 

Sikand, Vadna [Co] 

Sohn’s Market Makers [E] 

Sopexa [E] 

Sorenson, Carla [Co] 

Southeast United Dairy Industry Association 

d/b/a The Dairy Alliance [U] 

sparks & honey, LLC [C, K] 

Spherix Consulting Group [B] 

Spire Research and Consulting [Co, E] 

Sports Science Insights, LLC [K] 

Stoury Creative, LLC [C] 

Strategic Conservation Solutions, LLC [C] 

Strategy Muse [K] 

SWC Technology Partners, LLC [B] 

Taco Bell Corporation [P] 

Taylor, Tammy [Co] 

Team Services, LLC [60] 

Technomic, Inc. [K] 

Texas A&M AgriLife Research [K] 

The Context Network, LLC [S] 

The Economist Intelligence Unit, NA, Inc. 

[K] 

The Family Room [C] 

The Foundation for National Institutes of 

Health [N] 

The Fresh Approach, Inc. [C] 

The Kroger Company [P] 

The McCully Group [E, I] 

Think Healthy Group, Inc. [C] 

TNS Custom Research, Inc. 

d/b/a Kantar Worldpanel [K] 

TradeMoves, LLC [E, K] 

United Dairymen of Arizona [U] 

United States Farmers and Ranchers [B] 

USDA Agriculture Research Service, 

Western Human Nutrition Research Center 

[K] 

Volp, Lori [Co] 

Waldvogel, Jay [Co] 

Washington Dairy Products Commission [U] 

Watkinson & Miller [B] 

Watson Green, LLC [B, N, U] 

Weber Shandwick Worldwide [C] 

Williams, Alexa [U] 

Youth Improved Inc. d/b/a GenYouth [N, 60] 

Ypulse, Inc. [C] 

Yum! Restaurants International, Inc. [P] 

Zenith International Ltd. [E, I] 

43 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board 

Contracts Approved by USDA, 2020 

Contractor Name [Contract Activities]: 

A = Advertising and Marketing B = Business Development 

K = Knowledge and Insights P = Partnerships 

37 Front St, LLC [K] 

AAG Unlimited [A] 

Anderson, Tyler [A] 

Andre Drummond, LLC [A] 

Arc USA Chicago [A] 

Arnold, Jaylen [A] 

Barberet, Cedric [A] 

Bernath, Steve [A] 

Bluetext, LLC [B] 

Born Just Right, Inc. [A] 

Boss Alert Entertainment, LLC [A] 

Brier, Michele V. [B] 

Campbell Ewald [A] 

Casano, Ella [A] 

Celebexperts, LLC [A] 

Chef Alli’s Inc. [A] 

Claudette Aimee Wilkins [A] 

CMGRP, Inc. d/b/a Weber Shandwick [A] 

Coastal Brand Management, LLC [A] 

Command Entertainment Group, Inc. [A] 

Common Ground Culinary [A] 

Competitor Group, Inc. [A] 

Cool Mom Picks [A] 

Cozy Lifestyle, Inc [A] 

Crafty Chica, LLC [A] 

Crazy Cool Media, LLC [A] 

Crème de la Crumb, LLC [A] 

Dairy Management Inc. [P] 

Dick Vitale, Inc. [A] 

DoExtra CRM Solutions, LLC [B] 

Domestikatedlife, LLC [A] 

Dr. Sheryl Zeigler, LLC [A] 

Dude Perfect, LLC [A] 

Dunston, Rachel [A] 

eatbigfish, LLC [A] 

Egg Strategy, Inc [K] 

El Concilio [A] 

Elevate Nutrition Consulting, LLC [A] 

Emily Hutchins [A] 

Essence Nutrition, LLC [A] 

Estate Five Media, LLC [A] 

Feed Me Media [A] 

Feeding America [P] 

Finance Service Group, LLC [A] 

Flexin’ In My Complexion, Inc. [A] 

Food for Thought Consulting, Inc. [K] 

Foodtalk Nutrition, LLC [A] 

Forever Wealthy [A] 

G & G Nutrition [A] 

Gail Golden Consulting, LLC [B] 

Gallegos United [A] 

General Mills, Inc. [P] 

Green, Tiffany [A] 

GuMel Media Agency [A] 

Hamaguchi, Carly [A] 

Hawk, Tony [A] 

Healthier Eats, LLC [A] 

Hickman, Ryan [A] 

Hurtado, Eliana Tardio [A] 

Information Resources, Inc. [B] 

Inmar Brand Solutions [A] 

InTech Integrated Marketing Services [B] 

International Dairy Foods Association [B] 

Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. [A] 

Isabel Eats, LLC [A] 

Jaimes, Melissa [A] 

44 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jason Alley [A] 

Jason Durolo [A] 

Jaylen Arnold’s Challenge [A] 

Jena Frumes [A] 

Jiang, Xuechen [A] 

Kai’s Peak, LLC [A] 

Kasim Hardaway [A] 

Kolcheff, Nick [A] 

Lawrence, Alan [A] 

Life Listened Media [A] 

Long Haul Management, Inc. [A] 

Lovely Eats, LLC [A] 

Lowe & Partners Worldwide, Inc. [A] 

Lowe Campbell Ewald [A] 

LW1, dba Aperture Talent [A] 

Malone, Jamie [A] 

Mathis, Andrea [A] 

Maximillian Petty [A] 

MLA Integrated Marketing Consulting [K] 

Mole and More, LLC [A] 

Muy Bueno, LLC [A] 

Natalie Rizzo [A] 

Otis, James [A] 

Parker Talent Management [A] 

Penner Media, Inc. [A] 

Pondera Advisors, LLC [B] 

Portland Health Coaching, LLC [A] 

Prime Consulting Group [A] 

Pritchard, Norah [A] 

Protagonist, LLC [K] 

Rachel Paul Nutrition, LLC [A] 

Radius Global Market Research [K] 

Raffin, James [A] 

Red Spark Consulting, LLC [A] 

Rinny Runs Endurance Sports, Inc. [A] 

Rizzo, Natalie [A] 

Roberts, Hannah [A] 

Rubin, Ronald [B] 

Sanchez, Ericka [A] 

SCA Promotions [A] 

Shepard Kramer [A] 

Snyder-Cohn, PC [B] 

SociedAD [A] 

Songfluencer, LLC [A] 

Spectrum Group Productions, Inc. [B] 

St Louis Baking and Pastry [A] 

Summer Shores [A] 

Surrency Jones Consulting Group, LLC [A] 

Sweetportfolio Company Inc [A] 

Talent Resources [A] 

Talento Unlimited, LLC [A] 

The Colony Group, LLC [B] 

The Heshey Company [P] 

The Marketing Arm, Inc. [A] 

The Mom 100 LLC [A] 

Two Much Entertainment, Inc. [A] 

United States Olympic Committee [P] 

United States Swimming, Inc. [P] 

Viacom International, Inc. [A] 

Victory Marketing Agency, LLC [B] 

Villacorta, Manuel [A] 

Ward, Jennifer [A] 

Watkinson Miller, PLLC [B] 

Watson, Eric [A] 

Woo, Jessica [A] 

Younger, Katherine [A] 

45 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National Dairy Foods Research Centers, 2020 

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 the industry, and 

create dairy products and ingredients with improved health, safety, quality, and functionality. 

Each Center has a comprehensive array of expertise and resources including dairy pilot plants to 

accomplish this mission. The centers transfer knowledge to industry by developing future 

professionals, offering technical assistance, and providing technical training and short courses. 

Applications labs within the dairy centers assist in concept creation, prototype development, 

troubleshooting, scale-up, sensory, and consumer evaluation. For additional information, please 

visit: https://www.usdairy.com/research-resources/dairy-foods-research-centers 

California Dairy Research Center 

• California Polytechnic State University – San Luis Obispo 

• David W. Everett, PhD., Center Director 

• www.dptc.calpoly.edu 

Midwest Dairy Foods Research Center 

• University of Minnesota – St. Paul 

• Iowa State University – Ames 

• South Dakota State University – Brookings 

• Lloyd Metzger, PhD., Center Director 

• www.midwestdairy.umm.edu 

Northeast Dairy Foods Research Center 

• Cornell University 

• David M. Barbano, PhD., Center Director 

• www.foodscience.cals.cornell.edu/cornell-dairy 

Southeast Dairy Foods Research Center 

• North Carolina State University 

• MaryAnn Drake, PhD., Center Director 

• www.sdfrc.ncsu.edu 

Western Dairy Center 

• Utah State University – Logan 

• Donald J. McMahon, PhD., Center Director 

• www.westerndairycenter.usu.edu 

Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research 

• University of Wisconsin – Madison 

• John Lucey, PhD., Center Director 

• www.wisc.edu 

46 
 

 

 

Approved Nutrition Competitive Research Activities, 2020 

Principal Investigator, Institution, Project Title, and Status 

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 – 

Additional Experiments [ongoing 2020]. 

Daniela Barile, PhD (University of California-Davis): Whey Phospholipid Concentrate as a 

Source of Bioactive Compounds that Improve Human Health [commenced 2020]. 

Christopher Blesso, PhD (University of Connecticut): Milk Phospholipids for the Prevention of 

Atherosclerosis [concluded 2020] 

Bradley Bolling, PhD (University of Wisconsin-Madison): Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Yogurt 

Mediated by The Intestinal Barrier [ongoing 2020]. 

Richard Bruno, PhD (Ohio State University): Alleviation of Metabolic Endotoxemia in Adults 

with Metabolic Syndrome with Milk Fat Globule Membrane [concluded 2020]. 

Nicholas Burd, PhD (University of Illinois at Urbana - Champaign): Dairy Food Consumption 

and its Effects on Inflammation and the Postprandial Regulation of Muscle Protein Synthesis 

[ongoing 2020]. 

In-Young Choi, PhD (University of Kansas Medical Center): Dairy Intake and Cerebral 

Antioxidant Defense in Aging: A Dietary Intervention Study [ongoing 2020]. 

David Clark, PhD (Bovina Mountain Consulting): Review and Prepare Summary Papers on the 

Influence of Dairy Consumption on Child (12-60 Months) with Maternal Nutrition [ongoing 

2020]. 

Sharon Donovan, PhD, RD & Barbara Fiese, PhD (University of Illinois at Urbana -

Champaign): STRONG Kids 2: A Cells-to-Society Approach to Nutrition in Early Childhood 

[ongoing 2020]. 

Rajavel Elango, PhD (The University of British Columbia, School of Population and Public 

Health (co-funding with Dairy Farmers of Canada)): Dietary Protein Quality Assessment of Milk 

in School-Age Children to Meet the Nutritional Need for the Most Limiting Amino Acid, Lysine, 

when Combined with Cereals [concluded 2020]. 

Foundation for the National Institutes of Health: The Performance of Novel Cardiac Biomarkers 

in the General U.S. Population [ongoing 2020]. 

Darcy Freedman, PhD, MPH (Case Western University): Modeling the Future of Food in Your 

Neighborhood Study [ongoing 2020]. 

Osama Hamdy, MD, PhD, FACE (Joslin Diabetes Center): Dairy and Type 2 Diabetes: 

Research, Outreach, and Education [ongoing 2020]. 

47 
Andrea R. Josse, PhD (York University): Assessing Diet Quality and the Use of Dairy Foods in 

Meals and Snacks During and After a Lifestyle Modification Intervention in Overweight and 

Obese Adolescent Girls [ongoing 2020]. 

Naiman A. Khan, PhD, RD (University of Illinois at Urbana - Champaign): Cross-Sectional and 

Longitudinal Predictors of Cognitive Control and Early Academic Abilities among Preschool 

Children [ongoing 2020]. 

Jana Kraft, PhD (University of Vermont): Full-Fat Yogurt and Glucose Tolerance [ongoing 

2020]; Dairy Fat Consumption and the Risk of Metabolic Syndrome: An Examination of the 

Unique Fatty Acids in Dairy. Narrative Review [concluded 2020]. 

Kevin C. Maki, PhD (Midwest Biomedical Research, a division of MB Clinical Research & 

Consulting): Scientific Literature Review on the Naturally Occurring Hormone Contents of 

Foods [ongoing 2020]. 

Andrew Mente PhD, MA ((McMaster University (co-funding with Dairy Farmers of Canada)): 

Dairy Consumption and Cardiovascular Disease in Diverse Populations [ongoing 2020]. 

Daniel Moore, PhD (University of Toronto): Anabolic Potential of Dairy and Dairy Products for 

Active Children and Adolescents [ongoing 2020]. 

Lynn L. Moore, D.Sc., MPH (Boston University School of Medicine): Cardiometabolic Effects 

of Butter and Other Fats and Oils in Framingham Offspring Study Adults [ongoing 2020]; 

Yogurt and Total Dairy Intake Among Women: Effects on Weight Change and Fracture Risk 

During Critical Life Stages [ongoing 2020]. 

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 [concluded 2020]. 

Yanni Papanikolaou, PhD (Nutritional Strategies, Inc.): Dairy Food Consumption and 

Association with Mortality Risk [ongoing 2020]; Animal Protein Intake and Association with 

Mortality Risk [ongoing 2020]. 

Pamela Pehrsson, PhD (USDA-Agricultural Research Service): Estimating the Nutritive Value of 

Fluid Cow’s Milk in the U.S. [ongoing 2020]. 

Stuart Phillips, PhD (McMaster University): The Mechanistic Underpinning of Protein Quality 

and Quantity in Aging Skeletal Muscle: A High Sensitivity Proteome Profiling Approach 

[ongoing 2020]. 

Shivani Sahni, PhD (Harvard University, Hebrew Rehabilitation Center): Dairy Food Intake, 

Vitamin D Status and Bone Measures [ongoing 2020]. 

Jeffery Schwimmer, MD (University of California, San Diego): 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 [ongoing 2020]. 

48 
 

Lyn Steffen, PhD, MPH, RD (University of Minnesota): Dairy Consumption, Dietary Patterns 

and Cardiac Phenotypes [ongoing 2020]. 

Elena Volpi, MD, PhD (University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston): A Phase I 

Randomized Clinical Trial of In-Hospital and Post-Hospital Whey Protein vs. Isonitrogenous 

Collagen Protein vs. Isocaloric Placebo Maltodextrin Supplementation to Improve Recovery 

from Hospitalization for an Acute Medical Illness in Previously Independent Community 

Dwelling Older Adults [ongoing 2020]. 

Taylor Wallace, PhD, CFS, FACN (Think Healthy Group Inc., and George Mason University): 

Dairy Consumption Across Menopause Transition into Later Life – Impact on Bone Mineral 

Density and Risk of Fractures in Women Enrolled in the SWAN Cohort [concluded 2020]. 

Gareth Wallis, PhD (University of Birmingham (United Kingdom)): Exploring Novel Uses for 

Lactose Constituents in Sports Nutrition [concluded 2020]. 

49 
 

 

 

 

 

Approved Product Competitive Research Projects, 2020 

Principal Investigator, Institution, Project Title, and Status 

Alirez Abbaspourrad, PhD (Cornell University): Annatto-Free Cheddar Cheese Whey Powder: 

Enzymatically Triggered Microcapsules as a Novel Method to Partition Color to Cheddar 

Cheese and Obtain White Whey Powder [ongoing 2020]; Novel Approaches to Encapsulate Live 

and Active Cultures to Extend their Shelf Life in Low Acid Beverages and Allow for NonRefrigerated Storage [commenced 2020]; Chemoenzymatic Synthesis of some of the Human Milk 

Oligosaccharides (HMOs) [commenced 2020]; Designing New Ion Exchange Resins Targeting 

Lactoferrin Recovery From Sweet Whey [commenced 2020]; Improvement Of Lactoferrin 

Thermal Stability and Functionality by Complex Coacervation and Encapsulation [commenced 

2020]; Conversion of Lactose to Surfactants [commenced 2020]. 

Jennifer Acuff, PhD (University of Arkansas): Determination of Thermal Inactivation Kinetics of 

Salmonella and a Surrogate in Dairy Powders [commenced 2020]. 

Samuel Alcaine, PhD (Cornell University): Evaluation of Protective Bacterial Cultures for the 

Effective Control of Listeria in High-Risk Cheese [concluded 2020]; Create Nationwide Food 

Safety Resources and Provide Support for Artisan/Farmstead Dairy Producers [ongoing 2020]. 

Jayendra K. Amamcharla, PhD (Kansas State University): Development, Characterization, and 

Evaluation of Modified Milk Protein Concentrate with Enhanced Functional Properties [ongoing 

2020]; Tailoring Protein Interactions to Influence Functional Properties of Milk Protein 

Concentrate Powders [commenced 2020]. 

Sanjeev Anand, PhD (South Dakota State University): To Identify Quorum Inhibitor Based AntiBiofilm Molecules for Developing New Generation Membrane-Biofilm Cleaners for the Dairy 

Industry [ongoing 2020]. 

David J. Baumler, PhD (University of Minnesota): Evaluation of Intense Pulsed Light 

Technologies for Non-Thermal Processing to Kill Bacterial Spores in Dry Milk Powders 

[ongoing 2020]. 

Andreia Bianchini, PhD (University of Nebraska): Application of Interventions at Farm Level to 

Reduce Sporeformer Bacteria [ongoing 2020]. 

Robert Dando, PhD (Cornell University): Eliminating Photosensitive Absorption Bands from 

LED Light Engines to Preserve Dairy Quality [concluded 2020]. 

MaryAnne Drake, PhD (North Carolina State University): Southeast Dairy Center Application 

Laboratory Program [ongoing 2020]; Consumer Perception Of Sustainability and its Relation to 

Labeling Dairy Foods and Ingredients [concluded 2020]; MCC Purity and Functionality for 

Ingredient Applications [ongoing 2020]; Comparison of the Efficiency of Ceramic and 

Polymetric Microfiltration Removal of Whey Protein from Sweet Whey [concluded 2020]; The 

Impact of Dairy Protein Fraction on the Physical and Sensory Properties of High Protein, Low 

Fat Vanilla Ice Cream [concluded 2020]; Determination Of Child Preferences for Milkfat in 

50 
 

Milk [concluded 2020]; Dairy Foods that are Calming/Immune Boosting and Identification of 

Consumer-Centric Messaging for these Products [commenced 2020]; Identification of Sources of 

Undesirable Flavors in Aseptic Milk [commenced 2020]; Sugar Reduction in School Lunch 

Chocolate Milk [commenced 2020]. 

David W. Everett, PhD (California Polytechnic State University – San Luis Obispo): California 

Dairy Center Application Laboratory Program [ongoing 2020]; Improving the Flavor of Cheese 

Made from Powdered Milk Using Buttermilk [ongoing 2020]. 

Kathleen Glass, PhD (University of Wisconsin-Madison): Mapping the Development of D- and 

Z-Values for L. Monocytogenes and Escherichia Coli O157:H7 In Cheese Milk to Reduce 

Pathogen Risks in Cheese Manufacture [ongoing 2020]. 

Julie Goddard, PhD (Cornell University): Mining Value Added, Naturally Derived, Sweeteners 

from Dairy Co-Product Streams [ongoing 2020]. 

Selvarani Govindasamy-Lucey, PhD (University of Wisconsin-Madison): Innovative Powders 

and Cheesemaking Processes for the Overseas Manufacture of Recombined Cheeses [ongoing 

2020]; Shelf-Stable Snacks Made by Extrusion of Natural Cheeses [commenced 2020]. 

Federico Harte, PhD (Pennsylvania State University): Prototype to Study the Effect of Ionic 

Environments on Casein Micelle Integrity [ongoing 2020]; Effects of Calcium Chelation and 

Alteration of Serum Composition on Low Temperature Gelation of Concentrated Milk Protein 

Solutions [ongoing 2020]; Transforming High Pressure Jet (HPJ) Processing into a 

Commercially Viable Technology for the Dairy Industry [commenced 2020]. 

Richard Hartel, PhD (University of Wisconsin-Madison): Application of Select Dairy Ingredients 

to Enhance Shelf Life, Physical Properties and Sensory Attributes of High Protein Frozen Dairy 

Desserts [commenced 2020]. 

Tu-Anh Hyunh, PhD (University of Wisconsin-Madison): A Novel GRAS Natural Antimicrobial 

to Control Listeria in the Dairy Processing Environment [ongoing 2020]; Inhibition of Listeria 

Monocytogenes on Wooden Cheese Board Microbiota [commenced 2020]. 

Mark Johnson, PhD (University of Wisconsin-Madison): Innovative Approaches to Increase the 

Shelf Life of String Cheese and Fresh Cheese Curds [ongoing 2020]. 

Helen Joyner, PhD (University of Idaho): Enhancing the Functionality of Milk Protein 

Concentrate through Direct Steam Injection Cooking [Ongoing 2020]; Creating Cleaner Label 

Process Cheese Foods by Replacing Emulsifying Salts with Dairy Proteins [ongoing 2020]. 

Larry Kenney, PhD (Pennsylvania State University): Characterization of the Effects of a Sports 

Drink Containing Milk Permeate on Hydration Status in Healthy Young Subjects [commenced 

2020]. 

John A. Lucey, PhD (University of Wisconsin-Madison): Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research 

Applications Laboratory [ongoing 2020]; Impact of Microfiltration Retentates on Cheese Quality 

[ongoing 2020]; New Membrane Technology to Make High-Value Dairy Ingredients [ongoing 

51 
 

2020]; Novel Ceramic Nanofiltration to Improve Coproduct Quality and Increase Utilization 

[ongoing 2020]. 

Curtis Luckett, PhD (University of Tennessee): Preference Mapping of the Chinese Cheese 

Market [ongoing 2020]. 

Sergio Martinez-Monteagudo, PhD (South Dakota State University): Development of A Two-Step 

Process for The Production of Food Ingredients from Whey Permeate [ongoing 2020]; Effective 

Phospholipids Extraction from Dairy Byproducts using Switchable Solvents [ongoing 2020]. 

Owen M. McDougal, PhD (Boise State University): Cost Effective Dairy Protein Certification 

Method [commenced 2020]. 

Melha Mellata, PhD (Iowa State University): Controlling Listeria monocytogenes in Fresh 

Cheeses with High Voltage Atmospheric Cold Plasma (HVACP) Treatment - Phase ll [ongoing 

2020]. 

Lloyd Metzger, PhD (South Dakota State University): Midwest Dairy Foods Applications 

Laboratories Program [ongoing 2020]; Manufacture of Ingredients for use in Clean Label 

Process Cheese and Recombined Cheese in Export Markets [commenced 2020]. 

Carmen I. Moraru, PhD (Cornell University): Cheese Snack Products: Consumer Trends and a 

Novel Manufacturing Approach Using Vacuum Microwave Drying Technology [commenced 

2020]. 

Mary Murphy, PhD (Exponent, Inc.): Nutrient Adequacy and Markers for Gestational Health 

Among Pregnant Women in the United States and Associations with Diet Quality and Dairy 

Consumption [ongoing 2020]. 

Daniel Noguera, PhD (University of Wisconsin-Madison): Microbial Production of Value-Added 

Constituents from Lactose-Rich Diary Coproducts [ongoing 2020]. 

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 2020]. 

Scott A. Rankin, PhD (University of Wisconsin-Madison): Production of Lactose-Free Dairy 

Products by the Catalytic Hydrolysis of Lactose in Dairy Streams with Solid Acid Catalysts 

[ongoing 2020]. 

Dojin Ryu, PhD (University of Idaho): Enhancing the Functionality of Milk Protein Concentrate 

Through Direct Steam Injection Cooking [commenced 2020]. 

Tonya Schoenfuss, PhD (University of Minnesota): Improvement of Processing and Functional 

Properties of Milk Protein Concentrate and Micellar Casein by Pulsed Electric Field PreTreatment [ongoing 2020]. 

52 
Jeyamkondan Subbiah (University of Nebraska – Lincoln): Microbial Inactivation Kinetics of 

Salmonella Spp. in Dairy Powders [ongoing 2020]. 

Ruihong Zhang, PhD (University of California-Davis): A Novel Integrated System for 

Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) Production from Cheese Production Byproducts [commenced 

2020]. 

Qixin Zhong, PhD (University of Tennessee): Improving Functionalities of Spray-Dried Skim 

Milk Powder by Supplementing Soluble Caseins [ongoing 2020]. 

53 
 

 

 

 

 

Approved Sustainability Competitive Research Activities, 2020 

Principal Investigator, Institution, Project Title, and Status 

Olivier Jolliet, PhD (University of Michigan): Dairy’s Nutritional Benefit and Environmental 

Impact – Phase II [ongoing 2020]. 

Catherine Keske, PhD (University of California, Merced): Economic Analysis of Agronomic use 

of Dairy Manure to Improve Soil Health [commenced 2020]. 

Ermias Krebreab, PhD (University of California - Davis): Quantitative Assessment for Feed 

Additives Enteric Methane Mitigation Protocol [ongoing 2020]. 

Johannes Lehmann, PhD (Cornell University): Biochar Education and Outreach for the Dairy 

Industry [ongoing 2020]. 

Keith Paustian, PhD (Colorado State University): Modeling Environmental Impacts of Synthetic 

and Dairy-Manure Based Fertilizers in U.S. Dairy Farms [commenced 2020]. 

Kristan Reed, PhD (Cornell University): The Ruminant Farm System Model - Dairy Cow Ration 

Formulation and Feed Allocation Modules [ongoing 2020]. 

Greg Thoma, PhD (University of Arkansas): Environmental Stewardship – Reporting Platform 

[commenced 2020]. 

Robin White, PhD (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University): Nutritional and 

Environmental Consequences of Dairy Removal from U.S. Agriculture [ongoing 2020]; Supply of 

Nutrients and Environmental Impacts of Milk Production at Global, Regional, and Country 

Specific Scales [concluded 2020]. 

Melissa Wilson, PhD (University of Minnesota): Understanding the Relationships Between 

Dairy Manure and Soil Health to Promote Dairy’s Sustainability [commenced 2020]. 

54