2011 Program Activities

UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF 

AGRICULTURE

Report to Congress

National Dairy Promotion and Research Program

National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Program
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Report to Congress

on the

National Dairy Promotion

and Research Program

and the

National Fluid Milk

Processor Promotion Program

2011 Program Activities

 
Contact Information

To obtain additional copies of this Report to Congress on the National Dairy Promotion and 

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

independent analysis of the programs, please contact:

Promotion, Research, and Planning Division

Dairy Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA

Stop 0233, Room 2958-South

1400 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20250-0233

(202) 720-6909

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

To obtain copies of the complete independent analysis report or for questions on Chapter 3, 

please contact:

Dr. Oral Capps, Jr. 

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

Webpage: http://AFCERC.tamu.edu

For additional information about the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board and Dairy 

Management Inc., please contact:

National Dairy Promotion and Research Board

Dairy Management Inc.

10255 West Higgins Road, Suite 900

Rosemont, IL 60018-5616

(847) 803-2000

http://www.dairyinfo.com

For additional information about the National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board, please 

contact:

National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board

1250 H Street, NW, Suite 950

Washington, DC 20005

(202) 737-0153

http://www.whymilk.com

ii
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political 

beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all 

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of 

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET 

center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 

326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call 

(202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

iii
Contents

Contact Information ............................................................................................................. ii

Executive Summary...............................................................................................................1

Chapter 1: The Dairy and Fluid Milk Promotion Programs............................................4

National Dairy Promotion and Research Board.......................................................................4

National Dairy Council® ..........................................................................................................5

Child Nutrition and Fitness Initiative. .....................................................................................6

Fuel Up to Play 60 ...................................................................................................................6

Let’s Move!..............................................................................................................................7

GenYOUth Foundation............................................................................................................7

Partnerships..............................................................................................................................7

Domino’s..................................................................................................................................7

McDonald’s..............................................................................................................................8

Export and Dry Ingredients......................................................................................................8

Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy...........................................................................................11

Sustainability..........................................................................................................................12

Food Safety..............................................................................................13

Dairy Research Institute.........................................................................................................13

Industry and Image Relations................................................................................................14

Qualified Dairy Product Promotion, Research

 or Nutrition Education Programs.....................................................................................15

National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board ..................................................................16

Medical and Scientific Activities...........................................................................................17

National Fluid Milk Programs...............................................................................................17

Moms.....................................................................................................................................17

Teens......................................................................................................................................18

Refuel with Chocolate Milk...........................................................................19

Hispanic .................................................................................................................................20

Board Research and Development.........................................................................................20

Chapter 2: USDA Activities...............................................................................................22

National Dairy Promotion and Research Board Oversight....................................................22

Nominations and Appointments ............................................................................................22

Organic Exemption ................................................................................................................22

Amendment to the Dairy Act.................................................................................................23

Foreign Agricultural Service..................................................................................................23

Contracts................................................................................................................................24

Contractor Audits...................................................................................................................24

Collections.............................................................................................................................24

Compliance ............................................................................................................................24

Qualified Programs................................................................................................................24

National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board Oversight..................................................25

iv
Contents, continued

Nominations and Appointments ............................................................................................25

Program Development ...........................................................................................................25

Contractor Audits...................................................................................................................25

Compliance ............................................................................................................................25

Chapter 3: Quantitative Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Marketing and Promotion 

Activities by the Milk Processor Education Program, Dairy Management, Inc., and 

Qualified Programs..............................................................................................................26

Objectives of the Evaluation Study........................................................................................26

Checkoff Expenditures Made by DMI, MilkPEP, and QPs...................................................27

Trends in Domestic Consumption .........................................................................................33

Trends in Dairy Exports.........................................................................................................35

Methodology for Analysis of Demand Relationships............................................................37

Demand for Fluid Milk ..........................................................................................................37

Demand for Cheese................................................................................................................40

Demand for Butter .................................................................................................................41

Demand for All Dairy Products.............................................................................................42

U.S. Dairy Commercial Export Demand ...............................................................................43

Impacts of Marketing and Promotion Activities on Demand for 

Dairy Products .......................................................................................................................43

Benefit Cost Ratios................................................................................................................45

Partnerships with the Dairy Industry and Retailers ...............................................................47

Concluding Remarks..............................................................................................................49

v
Executive Summary

The enabling legislation of the dairy producer and fluid milk processor promotion programs 

requires the 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 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 (7CFR § 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 advertising campaigns of the two programs. Unless otherwise noted, this 

report addresses program activities for the fiscal period January 1 through December 31, 2011, of 

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

National Dairy Promotion and Research Program

Mandatory assessments collected under the Dairy Act totaled $98.4 million in 2011, including 

assessments and interest income. The National Dairy Promotion and Research Board (Dairy 

Board) portion of the revenue from the 15-cent per hundredweight producer assessment was 

$97.6 million and the 7.5-cent per hundredweight dairy importer assessment was $761,000. 

Qualified Programs revenue was $184.5 million, for 2011. 

On March 17, 2011, USDA announced a final rule that amended the Dairy Order and established 

a dairy import assessment program as required by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 

2002 (2002 Farm Bill) and the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill). 

Additionally, the term “United States” was amended in the Dairy Act to mean all States, the 

District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. All provisions of the final rule 

were effective April 1, 2011, except those regarding dairy importer assessments, which became 

effective August 1, 2011. Details of the import assessment program are presented in Chapter 1 

and Chapter 2. 

Expenditures by the Dairy Board and many of the Qualified Programs are integrated 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 continued to develop and 

implement programs to expand the human consumption of dairy products by focusing on 

partnerships and innovation, product positioning with consumers, and new places for dairy 

product consumption. 

Focusing on health and wellness, the Dairy Board continued its support for Fuel Up to Play 60, a 

partnership between the National Dairy Council (NDC), the National Football League (NFL),

and in collaboration with the USDA, to combat childhood obesity in schools. Through the 

Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy, the Dairy Board continued its focus on maintaining consumer 

confidence in dairy products through food safety workshops that provide education to dairy 

processors on best practices and techniques for in-plant pathogen control. Through the Dairy 

Research Institute, the Dairy Board continued its support for nutrition, product, and sustainability 

1
research and launched Dairy Research Insights, an informative monthly e-newsletter for the 

dairy industry that highlights technical insights related to the priority areas of dairy nutrition 

research, product research, and sustainability. Details of the activities of the dairy producer and 

dairy importer program are presented in Chapter 1. 

National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Program

The National 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 milk, increase 

milk consumption, and maintain and expand markets and uses for fluid milk products in the 48 

States and the District of Columbia. During 2011, the Fluid Milk Board embarked upon the 

industry’s first-ever long range planning project. In doing so, research revealed that a key 

strategy to reverse the decline in fluid milk consumption was to focus on consumer occasions, 

and “Breakfast at home” was identified as a key occasion and new focal point for the Fluid Milk 

Board’s activities. Additionally, a stronger emphasis on the Fluid Milk Board’s existing work 

around post-workout chocolate milk consumption, or “Refuel,” was also a focal point in 2011. 

2011 kicked off with “Pour One More,” which encouraged Moms to “pour one more” serving of 

milk for herself and her family, highlighting that Americans are falling short of the essential 

nutrients in their diets which milk readily provides. Similarly, the Fluid Milk Board launched 

Una Mas Cuenta (One More Counts), a parallel program with the goal of educating Hispanic 

consumers and giving them an actionable message to help improve their family’s health and 

well-being. By emphasizing milk’s nutrient density, the campaign encouraged Hispanic moms 

to pour one more serving of milk for herself and her family to help close the nutrient gap. For

teens, the program supported messages to keep future moms drinking milk and “The Power of 9” 

– a program focused upon milk’s nine essential nutrients, showed teen girls that making good 

food choices and drinking low fat or fat free milk can help them look great on the outside and 

feel confident and strong on the inside. The Fluid Milk Board’s messaging for the “Refuel With 

Chocolate Milk” campaign continued to stress the importance of muscle recovery and 

rehydration post-exercise by drinking a glass of low fat or fat free chocolate milk. Additionally, 

research from the long range planning project revealed that adults, aged 18-34, who exercise 

regularly and are not chocolate milk rejecters, are the most viable refuel targets – with an 

estimated audience of 42 million consumers. 

Assessments generated $104.6 million in 2011. The Fluid Milk Order requires the Fluid Milk 

Board to return 80 percent of the funds received from California processors to the California 

Milk Processor Board. The amount returned to California from the 2011 assessments was $9.8

million. The California fluid milk processor promotion program uses the funds to conduct its 

promotion activities, which include the got milk?® advertising campaign. The 2011 activities of 

the National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Program are presented in the Fluid Milk Board 

section in Chapter 1 of this report.

USDA Oversight

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

oversight objectives ensure that the Boards and Qualified Programs properly account for all 

2
program funds and that they administer the programs in accordance with the respective Acts and 

Orders. All advertising, promotional, research, and educational materials are developed under 

established guidelines. All Board budgets, contracts, and advertising materials are reviewed and 

approved by USDA. USDA employees attend all Board and Committee meetings, monitor all 

Board activities, and have responsibility for obtaining an independent evaluation of the 

programs. Additional USDA responsibilities relate to nominating and appointing Board 

members, amending the Orders, conducting referenda, assisting with noncompliance cases, and 

conducting periodic program audits. The Boards reimburse the Secretary, as required by the 

Acts, for all of USDA’s costs of program oversight and for the independent analysis. In 2011 the 

Secretary of Agriculture appointed 10 members to the Dairy Board and 6 members to the Fluid 

Milk Board. Chapter 2 details USDA’s oversight activities. 

Independent Analysis

Chapter 3 presents 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. It is estimated that the generic fluid milk marketing activities sponsored by 

the programs have helped mitigate the decline of fluid milk consumption. Due to the dairy 

promotion programs, fluid milk consumption was 5.8 percent higher than it otherwise would 

have been over the period of the study. Specifically, gains in revenue at the farm level were 

greater than the costs of the programs. The benefit cost ratios for fluid milk were calculated to 

be $3.95 for every dollar invested; for cheese $4.43 for every dollar invested; and for butter 

$6.26 for every dollar invested. Details of Texas A&M’s independent evaluation are presented 

in Chapter 3. 

3
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. 

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 results of the programs.

The Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) appoints 38 members to the Dairy Board, 36 of whom 

are dairy producers that represent 12 geographic regions within the United States, and 2 of whom 

represent dairy importers. The appointments are made from nominations submitted by producer 

organizations, importer organizations, general farm organizations, and qualified dairy product 

promotion, research, or nutrition education programs. Members serve staggered three-year terms 

with no member serving more than two consecutive terms. 

Total Dairy Board actual revenue for 2011 was $98.4 million (including assessments and 

interest). The Dairy Board amended its budget to $103.9 million by incorporating program 

development funds not budgeted previously and carry-forward from their 2010 budget. The 

Dairy Board budget for 2012 projects total revenue of $100.2 million from domestic and import 

assessments and interest. The Dairy Board’s administrative budget continued to be within the 

5–percent–of–revenue limitation required by the Dairy Order. A list of actual income and 

expenses for 2011 is provided in Appendix B–1. USDA’s oversight and evaluation expenses for 

2011 are listed in Appendix B–2. Appendix B–3 displays the Dairy Board’s approved budget for 

2011. An independent auditor’s report for 2011 is provided in Appendix C–1.

The Dairy Board has two standing committees: the Finance and Administration (F&A) 

Committee and the Executive Committee. The F&A Committee is made up of the Dairy Board 

officers and appointees named by the Dairy Board Chair. The Dairy Board Treasurer is the chair 

of the F&A Committee, and the full Dairy Board serves as the Executive Committee. 

The remaining committees for the Dairy Board are joint program committees with the United 

Dairy Industry Association (UDIA). 

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

between the Dairy Board and UDIA. UDIA is a federation of 19 of the 66 Qualified Programs 

under the direction of a board of directors. DMI manages the Dairy Board programs as well as 

those of the American Dairy Association® and National Dairy Council®. 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 apply knowledge that leverages opportunities to expand dairy 

4
markets. The DMI Board of Directors comprises all Dairy Board (38) and all UDIA (45) 

members. Voting is equalized between the Dairy Board and UDIA.

DMI serves both boards 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 they can be implemented. In September 2010, both boards 

approved the 2011 unified dairy promotion plan budget and national implementation programs. 

During 2011, DMI continued to implement a national staffing structure which utilizes personnel 

throughout DMI and the UDIA federation to plan and execute the national programs.

DMI funds 1 to 3–year research projects that support marketing efforts. Six Dairy Foods 

Research Centers and one Nutrition Institute provide much of the research. Their locations and 

the research objectives are listed in Appendix E–1. DMI’s dairy foods competitive research 

activities and nutrition competitive research projects can be found in Appendices E–2 and E–3, 

respectively. Universities and other industry researchers throughout the United States compete 

for these research contracts.

The joint Dairy 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 joint program committees: Research and Insights; Health and Wellness; Export 

and Ingredients; and Producer Relations and Consumer Confidence. Each committee elects a 

Chair and Vice-Chair. The joint committees and the DMI staff are responsible for setting 

program priorities, planning activities and projects, and evaluating results. During 2011, the 

Dairy and UDIA Board met jointly six times.

In 2011, DMI again hosted dairy director regional planning forums across the country to review 

and create marketing strategies for development of the unified dairy promotion plan. These 

forums are designed to create one unified dairy promotion plan and allow opportunity for grass 

roots dairy farmers to ask questions, raise concerns, and offer their thinking on the plan’s 

direction and development. 

The following information describes Dairy Board and UDIA program activities along with new 

programs and initiatives implemented in 2011.

National Dairy Council®

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

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

communication since 1915. NDC provides timely, scientifically sound nutrition information to 

the media, physicians, dieticians, nurses, educators, consumers, and other health professionals. 

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

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

industry for new dairy product innovation.

5
Health professional outreach remained a critical component of NDC and the 3-Every-DayTM

program. The American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, 

the American Dietetic Association, the National Medical Association, the School Nutrition 

Association, and the National Hispanic Medical Association all continued their support and 

partnership with DMI and 3-Every-DayTM. By working with key health professional partners like 

these, DMI continued to provide a clear, practical message to the public on the importance of 

consuming three daily servings of low–fat and fat–free dairy. Combined, these organizations 

represent more than 250,000 health professionals nationwide. 

As an extension of its online engagement of health professionals, NDC continued its blog, “The 

Dairy Report” (www.thedairyreport.com). Blog contributors include NDC registered dietitians, 

Ph.D. nutritionists, and communication experts, as well as guest experts. Through the blog, 

NDC provides the latest news, analysis, and opinion on nutrition and health research related to 

dairy. 

Child Nutrition and Fitness Initiative 

The Child Nutrition and Fitness Initiative (CNFI) is a platform of health and wellness initiatives 

designed to improve the health and wellness of the nation’s youth, many of whom are 

overweight and undernourished. CNFI’s initiatives are focused on reaching youth in schools and 

builds on existing programs, including New Look of School Milk and Expanding Breakfast. The 

programs use youth–focused messaging to educate and motivate children to consume a healthy 

diet that includes milk and dairy products and achieve daily physical activity. Additionally,

CNFI’s priorities align with the strategies of the Health and Wellness Committee of the 

Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy. 

Fuel Up to Play 60 

Fuel Up to Play 60 (FUTP60) is the centerpiece of CNFI. This 

in–school program combines the nutrition expertise of NDC and 

the fitness expertise and star power of the NFL to combat 

childhood obesity and provide youth with resources necessary to 

improve their personal health and school environment. FUTP60 is based on the USDA’s Dietary 

Guidelines for Americans that recommend the consumption of more fruits, vegetables, low–fat 

and fat–free dairy foods, and whole grains, and getting 60 minutes of daily physical activity. 

FUTP60 reached more than 38 million students in more than 73,000 schools during the

2011/2012 school year. Students and schools joined the program by signing up at 

www.fueluptoplay60.com. Each enrolled school received a School Wellness Kit that contained 

in–school promotional materials and a “Playbook” containing healthy eating and physical 

activity strategies, or “plays.” Each of the plays could be tailored to individual school health and 

wellness needs. Students were encouraged to form teams, with supervision from an adult 

program advisor, to carry out the plays and generate excitement for making healthy changes 

throughout the student body. 

6
In July, FUTP60 recognized students’ commitments to making healthy changes by hosting a 

Student Ambassador Summit in Washington, D.C. Thirty-one student leaders were chosen from 

thousands of applicants to attend the summit to collaborate on in-school solutions to the 

childhood obesity epidemic. Student ambassadors, along with their program advisors, 

participated in leadership training sessions, shared success stories and tips, and provided 

feedback on the program. The event featured a healthy cooking demonstration by Top Chef

Carla Hall and an NFL fitness session with St. Louis Rams quarterback Sam Bradford. 

Let’s Move!

In December 2011, First Lady Michelle Obama and FUTP60 announced a collaboration to 

strengthen each program’s efforts and improve the overall health of the nation’s youth. Let’s 

Move!, First Lady Michelle Obama’s initiative, is dedicated to solving childhood obesity in a 

generation. FUTP60, Let’s Move!, and the Ad Council produced a public service announcement 

featuring Dallas Cowboys quarterback Tony Romo, encouraging youth to join the FUTP60 

movement. FUTP60 and Let’s Move! started the 2011/2012 school year with new tools and 

resources for students to take control of their own health and access fun ways to achieve active 

lifestyles. FUTP60 and Let’s Move! also encourage schools to meet USDA’s Healthier U.S. 

School Challenge through participating in FUTP60. Additionally, both programs promote the 

President’s Council on Fitness, Sports and Nutrition’s Presidential Active Lifestyle Award, given 

to students who perform 60 minutes of physical activity 5 days a week for 6 weeks and practice 

healthy eating habits. 

Gen YOUth Foundation

The Gen YOUth Foundation (Foundation) was launched in 2011 by NDC as a non-profit 

organization whose mission is to create a movement that will inspire youth to change their 

behavior. The Foundation will work with schools, communities, and business partners to 

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

including FUTP60. 

The Foundation is governed and managed by a board of directors that covers multiple fields of 

expertise, including agriculture, health and nutrition, sports and fitness, media, education, and the 

culinary arts. The Foundation Board meets twice a year to identify sustainable solutions to the 

childhood obesity epidemic. 

Partnerships

Domino’s

DMI continued its partnership with Domino’s Pizza in 2011 through continued collaboration to 

increase the availability of Smart SliceTM. Domino’s Smart SliceTM is a line of kid-approved 

pizzas that use light and reduced-sodium mozzarella cheese in addition to other reduced-fat and 

reduced-sodium ingredients. Domino’s Smart SliceTM is available in more than 400 U.S. 

schools.

7
McDonald’s

DMI also continued its partnership with McDonald’s in 2011. According to DMI, the 

partnership has led to more than 1.7 billion pounds of additional dairy sales between 2009 and 

2011. Through the checkoff, six employees provide technical assistance, support, and dairy 

expertise to McDonald’s. 

Export and Dry Ingredients

DMI’s export enhancement program is implemented by the U.S. Dairy Export Council 

(USDEC), supported through the checkoff program. USDEC receives primary funding from 

three sources: DMI’s checkoff program, USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), and 

membership dues from dairy cooperatives, processors, exporters and suppliers. In 2011, USDEC 

received $15.5 million from DMI; $6 million from USDA’s Market Access Program, Foreign 

Market Development Program, and other FAS programs that support commodity groups in 

promotion of their commodities in foreign markets; $920,000 from membership dues; and 

$658,000 from other sources. USDEC began its 16th year of operation in 2011, and its total

annual budget was approximately $23 million.

USDEC has offices in Washington, D.C.; Mexico City, Mexico; Tokyo, Japan; Seoul, South 

Korea; Hong Kong, Taipei, and Shanghai, China; Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam; Bangkok, 

Thailand; Beirut, Lebanon; Oxford, England; and São Paulo, Brazil (Figure 1–1). 

In 2011, USDEC embarked on a “strategic evolution” to reexamine its focus to ensure that it 

maximizes resources to align with a shifting global business environment and more committed 

U.S. dairy exporters. While USDEC’s early goal was to help the U.S. industry to familiarize 

itself with export sales and introduce dairy products to overseas markets, the next level of 

programming aims to solidify the United States as a consistent global supplier. Getting into 

markets, staying in them, and providing members the tools to meet and compete for customer 

needs is the goal of the USDEC 3-year business plan. USDEC will address the evolving 

business needs of the industry through greater emphasis in market access and regulatory affairs, 

more actionable strategic insights and research, and shift promotional assistance to markets and 

segments with better growth and cost/benefit opportunities.

Export data confirms that U.S. dairy product export value reached $4.8 billion while volume 

reached 3.2 billion pounds in 2011 (Figure 1–2). In 2011, 13.3 percent of total U.S. milk solids

were exported, while imports represented 2.9 percent. For comparison, in 2010, exports 

represented 12.8 percent of U.S. milk solids production and imports remained the same at 2.9 

percent (Figure 1–3).

Exports represented 49 percent of the nonfat dry milk (NDM) and skimmed milk powder (SMP) 

produced in the United States in 2011, 55 percent of the whey proteins, 69 percent of the lactose,

8
Figure 1–1. USDEC Offices

Figure 1–2. Value and Volume of U.S. Dairy Exports.

Source: USDEC, NMPF, USDA

9
Figure 1–3. U.S. Dairy Trade Balance, 1996–2011.

Source: USDEC, NMPF, USDA

7.6 percent of the butter, and 4.7 percent of the cheese. The NDM/SMP and cheese percentages 

were all-time highs.

Mexico ($1.1 billion, the first time in which sales exceeded a billion dollars), Southeast Asia 

($963 million) and Canada ($496 million) remained the largest destinations for U.S. dairy 

products.

USDEC, with the support of the dairy checkoff, continued working to improve the global (export 

and U.S.) ingredient capabilities of domestic dairy companies by providing up–to–date 

information on market conditions, global trade trends, and regulatory requirements for export. 

USDEC continued the use of the Web site www.innovatewithdairy.com to help increase demand 

for U.S. dairy ingredients by promoting how dairy adds the difference in taste, functionality, and 

convenience. The ingredient program supports dairy product and nutrition research, ingredient 

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

Dairy, food, and beverage manufacturers use this program to find know-how, laboratory, and 

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

Publications that support the innovation and ingredients program include: (1) Dairy Council 

Digest–published six times per year and focuses on the latest dairy nutrition research relevant to 

dairy, food and beverage manufacturers, and health professionals; (2) Ingredient Specification 

Sheets–cover technical basics of a variety of dairy ingredients and are updated as new data is 

available; (3) Dairy Herald–reports periodically on how food formulators and markets can take 

10
advantage of taste, cost, functional, and nutritional appeal of dairy ingredients; (4) Application

Monographs–published as necessary, provide a comprehensive look at how whey protein and 

other dairy ingredients can be used in foods and beverages for different functionality needs; 

(5) Tools for Innovation–a periodic supplement from DMI and Dairy Foods magazine that 

covers dairy product trends and research; (6) Innovations in Dairy–a technical bulletin, published 

two to three times a year on specific topics in dairy products, ingredients, processing, and 

packaging; and (7) Dairy Business View–an e-newsletter published bi-monthly with Dairy Foods

magazine that covers dairy industry news, new technologies, business trends, innovation, and 

research.

Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy 

Dairy producers, processors, and manufacturers 

announced an unprecedented agreement in 2008

to collaborate on pre-competitive initiatives 

through a new Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy 

(Innovation Center). The goal of the agreement is 

to accelerate industry innovation throughout the supply chain to increase sales in an increasingly 

competitive consumer marketplace.

The Innovation Center was established by dairy farmers through DMI. It is the first organization 

of its kind to bring together milk producers, processors, and manufacturers under one 

organization to collaborate on major issues affecting the industry. 

The Innovation Center provides a forum for the entire dairy industry to work together to offer 

consumers the products they want—when and where they want them—and increase dairy sales 

through pre-competitive collaboration. It combines the collective resources of the industry to 

provide consumers with nutritious dairy products and foster industry innovation for healthy 

people, healthy products, and a healthy planet. The Board of Directors for the Innovation Center 

represents leaders from across the dairy value chain, including producers and chief executives of 

the Nation’s leading processors, manufacturers and brands. The Innovation Center is supported 

and staffed by DMI. 

The Innovation Center will move forward its priorities through enlisting cross-industry 

operational committees charged with developing action plans. These committees and purposes 

include: Health and Wellness Committee – to increase category sales and demand for dairy 

products by identifying and meeting the health and wellness needs and desires of consumers; 

Research and Insights Committee – to act as the steward of the pre-competitive innovation assets 

and resources of the industry; Globalization – to provide a strategic analysis of the global dairy 

landscape and a common understanding of the challenges, opportunities, and threats posed by 

increasing globalization to the U.S. dairy industry; Sustainability – to provide consumers with 

the nutritious dairy products they want in a way that is economically viable, environmentally 

sound, and socially responsible; and Food Safety – to improve food safety practices and to 

protect trust in dairy. 

11
Sustainability 

In 2011, Dairy leaders continued their industry-wide commitment and action plan to reduce the 

dairy industry’s carbon footprint while increasing business value from farm to consumer. The 

action plan was an outcome of the industry’s June 2008 Sustainability Summit for U.S. Dairy, a 

gathering of 250 leaders representing producers, processors, non-governmental organizations, 

university researchers, and government agencies, held in Rogers, Arkansas. 

The plan focuses on operational efficiencies and innovations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 

while ensuring financial viability and industry growth. The dairy industry has committed to a 

goal to reduce the carbon footprint of fluid milk by 25 percent by the year 2020 — equivalent to 

taking more than 1.25 million cars off the road every year. The industry will reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions throughout the entire dairy value chain – from production of feed for dairy cows 

through retail. Based on goals from the Sustainability Summit, 12 prototype projects are being 

tested to determine their real–world viability as ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

1. Farm SMART – Provides dairy producers with their farm's environmental footprint. 

It also allows them to compare energy use, greenhouse gas (GHG)

emissions, and water use against regional and national averages compiled

by the U.S. dairy industry's Comprehensive Life Cycle Assessment for Fluid Milk.

2. Cow of the Future – Reduction of enteric methane by accelerating identification and 

adoption of new practices and technologies.

3. Farm Energy Efficiency – Online resources for producers to learn how energy audits can 

add value and reduce costs to dairy producer operations. 

4. Dairy Power – Focused on realizing the significant potential of anaerobic digester 

systems for U.S. dairy farmers by helping put 1,300 methane digesters on dairy farms by 

2020. Working with regional and national programs, the project addresses existing 

barriers, such as technology and financing.

5. Dairy Plant Smart and Next Generation Cleaning – Development and testing of the Dairy 

Plant Smart toolkit to support energy management in fluid milk processing plants.

6. Next Generation Processing - The use of UV technology as an alternative method to 

heat–based pasteurization. 

7. Processing and Packaging Lifecycle Assessment (LCA) – Study findings on processing 

and packaging white and value-added milks and creamers to be published, after peer 

review, in 2012.

8. Dairy Fleet Smart – Development and test of tool to support fuel and cost reductions in 

milk transport and distribution of dairy products.

In 2011, the Innovation Center and Dairy Research Institute launched a new awards program, the 

U.S. Dairy Sustainability Awards, to recognize dairy farms, businesses and collaborative 

partnership efforts that deliver economic, environmental, and/or social benefit and help advance 

the sustainability of the dairy industry. The awards are divided into three categories: dairy farm, 

dairy processing/manufacturing and energy, and energy conservation/generation. Nominations 

will be evaluated based on the program’s or project’s results and by triple bottom-line success –

economic, environmental, and social. Judges will also consider the potential for adoption of the 

12
idea by the dairy industry. The judging panel will be comprised of the dairy supply chain, 

academia, government, media, business, and nongovernmental organizations. Award winners 

will be announced in 2012 at a special awards ceremony.

Food Safety

In 2011, the Food Safety Task Force was chartered as a standing operating committee. The Food 

Safety Committee was created to improve manufacturing conditions in all dairy processing 

facilities to prevent food safety recalls that could compromise the reputation of the dairy industry 

across all plants in the United States. Specifically, the committee focuses on four action 

platforms: pathogen control, verification via auditing, supply chain, and regulatory. 

In July 2011, the Food Safety Committee, through the International Dairy Foods Association 

(IDFA) and the Innovation Center, offered a new training program to educate dairy processors 

on best practices and techniques for in-plant pathogen control to better meet food safety 

regulations. The workshop was developed by food safety experts from 10 dairy processors, 

cooperatives, manufacturers, and IDFA. Pathogen-control guidelines, principles, techniques and 

approaches for the dairy plant will be the main focus for the workshop, along with food-safety 

fundamentals on sanitation, sanitary design, development of standard operating procedures, 

environmental monitoring techniques, and case studies. Food safety experts from several 

industry companies will deliver the training, which provides hands-on experience for immediate 

implementation when participants return to their plants.

Dairy Research Institute

The Dairy Research Institute (DRI) 

was created by DMI in 2010 to conduct research on behalf of the Innovation Center, the National 

Dairy Council, and other sponsors, by building on the dairy promotion program’s investment in 

research. The nonprofit organization works with and through industry, academic, government 

and commercial partners to increase pre-competitive, technical research in nutrition, products 

and sustainability. DRI is the first organization of its kind to provide an industry wide approach 

to technical research for the dairy industry. 

The Innovation Center board of directors identifies pre-competitive priorities that address 

industry research issues and opportunities. DRI then defines an industry wide research plan and 

identifies funding. 

DRI research priorities are categorized into four areas. Nutrition Research includes blood 

pressure, dairy protein, digestive health, milk fat/cheese, obesity, metabolic, health, body 

composition and performance, and relationship of food and beverage nutrient density to climate 

impact. Product research includes applications and technical support, cheese, fluid milk/cultured 

products, milk ingredients/fractions, partnerships, and whey/co-products. Sustainability research 

projects include greenhouse gas reduction opportunities and lifecycle assessments. Finally, 

planning/partnership/regulatory research includes business development strategy, planning and 

partnerships, and regulatory affairs guidance. 

13
During 2011, DRI launched a monthly e-newsletter, Dairy Research Insights, to provide updates 

on recent technical research to dairy industry stakeholders. The e-newsletter features summaries 

of published research related to DRI’s nutrition, product, and sustainability priority areas. The enewsletter also provides a list of upcoming events, such as conferences, short courses, and 

workshops.

Industry and Image Relations

Each year, fewer consumers are connected to food production and receive mixed messages 

through the media about the agriculture industry. As part of an effort to help protect the image 

of dairy producers and the dairy industry among the public, DMI continued its Web site, 

www.dairyfarmingtoday.org. The site educates the public about how today’s dairy producers 

care for their animals, protect the land, and produce safe, wholesome milk.

To help dairy producers directly communicate with consumers about dairy farming practices, 

DMI continued its “Telling Your Story” (TYS) program. TYS provides dairy producers with 

public relations, presentation, and media training to build and maintain consumers’ confidence in 

the dairy industry’s production practices and products. 

DMI continued the social media component of its TYS program, which utilizes Facebook, 

YouTube, blogs, and other social media. The goal of myDairy is to develop a network of social 

media–savvy dairy advocates who use online communication to tell the dairy industry’s story, 

reinforce and build its positive image, and counter inaccurate or uninformed online commentary 

about dairy farming practices. Dairy producers and industry representatives are provided with an 

online toolkit of social media and dairy resources that can be used to tell dairy’s story through 

blogs, social networking sites, and positive dairy videos and photos. 

DMI also worked to inform dairy farmers about how their assessment dollars were being used. 

The organization continued to communicate to dairy producers and other industry audiences 

through the TYS program, publications (such as the annual report, joint newsletters with 

Qualified Programs, and dairy cooperative check inserts), dairy industry events (including major 

trade shows and producer meetings), and media relations (including press releases, feature 

placement, and farm broadcast interviews). 

DMI continued its Issues Management and Crisis Readiness programs. DMI staff and related 

dairy industry representatives work to monitor and identify current and potential issues where the 

safety, benefit, or reputation of dairy producers or dairy products may be publicly called into 

question. As needed, the network of representatives respond to media requests, train dairy 

spokespeople, build third–party relationships within the agricultural industry, and distribute 

media alerts with key messages to maintain consistent industry–wide responses. Primary areas 

of focus include animal welfare, environment, sustainability, food safety, child nutrition, and 

modern farming practices. 

The Crisis Readiness program continued to develop a strong network of dairy industry and 

agricultural representatives. Through this coordinated effort, a communication plan was 

developed to communicate quickly, accurately, and effectively in the event of a crisis, such as 

14
disease outbreak, product contamination, or food-borne illness. The checkoff led three regional 

crisis drills in 2011 that engaged many sectors of the industry, focusing on hypothetical scenarios 

ranging from animal disease outbreaks to the international tampering of dairy products. These 

drills help to maintain the industry’s state of readiness and reinforce the critical nature of steps 

taken within the first 24 hours of a crisis. 

DMI continued its support for butter through cooperation and public relations activities with the 

American Butter Institute, including the Web site www.butterisbest.com, a consumer resource 

center with current cooking trends and ideas, butter recipes, and links to other butter-related Web 

sites. DMI also continued to work with Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board to execute co-funded 

retail butter promotion activities. The national effort helped to drive incremental retail butter 

sales in select markets across the United States.

Qualified Dairy Product Promotion, Research, or Nutrition Education Programs 

The Secretary annually certifies Qualified Programs. To receive certification, the Qualified 

Program must: 1) conduct activities that are intended to increase human consumption of milk

and dairy products generally; 2) have been active and ongoing before passage of the Dairy Act, 

except for programs operated under the laws of the United States or any State; 3) be primarily 

financed by producers, either individually or through cooperative associations; 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); and 5) not use program funds for the purpose of influencing 

governmental policy or action (7 CFR §1150.153). A list of the Qualified Programs is provided 

in Appendix F.

The aggregate revenue from the producers’ 15-cent per hundredweight assessment directed to the 

Qualified Programs in 2011 was $184 million (approximately 10 cents out of the 15-cent 

assessment). See Appendix B–7 and Appendix B–8 for aggregate income and expenditure data 

of the Qualified Programs.

In 2011, as a part of the final rule that amended the Dairy Order and established a dairy import 

assessment program, three new Qualified Programs were certified by USDA. The Puerto Rico 

Milk Industry Development Fund was certified as a qualified producer promotion program, and 

the Cheese Importers Association of America and Global Dairy Platform were certified as 

qualified importer promotion programs. Dairy importers may designate 2.5 cents per 

hundredweight to a Qualified Program. If the importer does not specify a Qualified Program, the 

entire 7.5 cents per hundredweight will be retained by the Dairy Board for use by the national 

program. 

Some of these Qualified Programs participate in cooperative efforts conducted and coordinated 

by other Qualified Programs and/or other organizations such as DMI, the Dairy Board, and 

UDIA. Their goal in combining funding and coordinating projects is more effective and efficient 

management of producers’ promotion dollars through larger, broad-based projects. For example, 

to support the unified marketing plan, UDIA coordinates nationally through DMI the programs 

and resources of 19 federation members and their affiliated units.

15
National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board 

The National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board (Fluid Milk Board) as authorized in the 

Fluid Milk Act administers a fluid milk promotion and consumer education program that is 

funded by fluid milk processors. The program is designed to educate Americans about the 

benefits of milk, increase fluid 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. Four fluid milk processors and one public member serve as at-large 

members on the current Fluid Milk Board. The members of the Fluid Milk Board serve 3-year 

terms and are eligible to be appointed to two consecutive terms. The Fluid Milk Promotion 

Order (Fluid Milk Order) provides that no company shall be represented on the Board by more 

than three representatives. Current Fluid Milk Board members are listed in Appendix A–2. A 

map of the Fluid Milk Board regions is shown in Appendix H–2. 

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 target-focused program 

committees (Moms, Teens, Hispanics, and Business Development and Research) to address the 

Fluid Milk Board’s concern that it provide the best possible oversight of program spending. The 

program committees are responsible for setting program priorities, planning activities and 

projects, and evaluating results. The Fluid Milk Board maintained the Finance Committee that 

reviews all program authorization requests for funding sufficiency, the Fluid Milk Board’s 

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

met three times during 2011. 

The National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Program (MilkPEP) is funded by a 20-cent per 

hundredweight assessment on fluid milk products processed and marketed commercially in 

consumer-type packages in the contiguous 48 States and the District of Columbia. The program 

exempts from assessment those processors who process and market 3 million pounds or less of 

fluid milk products each month, excluding fluid milk products delivered to the residence of a 

consumer. Assessments generated $104.6 million in 2011. The Fluid Milk Order requires the 

Fluid Milk Board to return 80 percent of the funds received from California processors to the 

California Milk Processor Board. The amount returned to California from 2011 assessments was 

$9.8 million. The California fluid milk processor promotion program uses the funds to conduct 

its promotion activities which include the “got milk?®” advertising campaign.

The actual income and expenses for 2010-2011 are provided in Appendix B–4. The Fluid Milk 

Board’s administrative expenses continued to be within the 5-percent-of-assessments limitation 

required by the Fluid Milk Order. USDA’s oversight and evaluation expenses for 2011 are 

16
detailed in Appendix B–5. Appendix B–6 contains the Fluid Milk Board’s approved budget for 

2011. Appendix C–2 contains an independent auditor’s reports for the period of 

January 1 through December 31, 2011.

Medical and Scientific Activities

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

health care professionals with expertise relevant to the health benefits of fluid milk, met twice in

2011. The MAB provides guidance to the Fluid Milk Board’s development of key nutritional 

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

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

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

Association, and the American Heart Association. They also continued to appear as medical 

professionals in the media, providing science-based statements supporting the health benefits of 

milk.

The medical and scientific activities of the Fluid Milk Board also included preparing press 

materials and acting as spokespersons on breaking research with relevance to fluid milk. The 

MAB worked over the past year to inform others in the scientific community of research that 

showed that consuming milk after exercise can aid in muscle recovery and rehydration. 

Additionally, the MAB continued to increase awareness about the nutritional benefits of serving 

both flavored and non-flavored white milk to children in schools. These communications and 

activities continue to highlight milk’s nutritional profile that includes nine essential vitamins and 

minerals. 

National Fluid Milk Programs 

In 2011, the fluid milk marketing plans were designed to conduct marketing and promotional 

activities emphasizing milk’s role in building strong families. Additionally, fluid milk continued 

promoting the importance of refueling after exercise with chocolate milk. Many communication 

media were used to accomplish these objectives, including television and print advertising, press 

releases, promotions, Internet, and others. The program’s target audiences included women and 

moms, teens, and Hispanics. The got milk?®/Milk Mustache 

advertising campaign, continued to provide the basis for 

advertising activities and other program delivery methods. A 

description of the 2011 program activities listed by advertising 

target area follows.

Moms

The Fluid Milk Board advertising campaign for the Moms target 

in 2011 continued to shift its Moms targeted messaging from 

“mom for herself” to “mom for her kids and family.” Pour One 

More was the initial 2011 campaign, which encouraged moms to 

pour one more serving of milk for herself and her family, 

17
highlighting that Americans are not getting all of the essential nutrients they need. The Pour One 

More campaign included television, print and digital advertising, and was bolstered by public 

relations and retail promotions. 

Two new television commercials featuring celebrities Susan Sarandon and Angie Harmon, 

highlighted the importance of milk in the family diet and the important role moms have in 

influencing their families’ milk drinking behaviors. The print campaign images of Sarandon and 

Harmon can be viewed in Appendix G.

Additionally, MilkPEP’s grassroots public relations activities allowed local processors the 

opportunity to engage consumers in the Pour One More effort, and incorporated the Fuel Up to 

Play 60 (FUTP60) messaging and featured National Football League players. FUTP60 is a 

nationwide in-school fitness and nutrition program aimed at combating childhood obesity. 

Partnerships continued to play a role in MilkPEP activities, as the program promoted the Pour 

One More platform through an integrated program with OREO® cookies/Nabisco. The 

promotion included on-pack placement of the Pour One More message. MilkPEP also partnered 

with Feeding America to amplify the Pour One More message at a national and local level.

Appendix G includes thumbnail images of the Fluid Milk Board’s promotional activities for 

moms in 2010.

Teens

2011 teen-targeted activities began with the launch of “The Power of 9” – a program featuring 

celebrity spokesperson Julianne Hough and Seventeen Magazine. The program focused on 

milk’s nine essential nutrients, and showed 

teen girls that making good food choices and 

drinking low fat and fat free milk can help 

them look their best on the outside and feel 

confident and strong on the inside. 

During the back-to-school timeframe, the 

Milk Fits You campaign focused exclusively 

on tween girls, positioning milk as a must 

have accessory to complement any personal 

style, for any occasion. These activities 

featured popular teen celebrities Victoria 

Justice and Disney star Brigit Mendler. 

The “Be Strong Challenge” also focused on teen girls, but instead began to employ the Refuel 

message while specifically targeting cheerleaders. The program emphasized how low fat 

chocolate milk can help cheerleaders refuel and replenish after a tough practice or competition, 

and help them “Be Strong” for their next practice or competition. Ashley Tisdale, former 

television cheerleader and singer, partnered with MilkPEP and American Cheerleader magazine 

to launch the campaign. To participate, cheerleading squads across the country submitted videos 

18
that showcased a chocolate milk refuel message. The winning squad received $5,000 and the 

opportunity to star in a Milk Mustache advertisement in American Cheerleader magazine.

Additionally, the Scholar Athlete Milk Mustache of the Year (SAMMY) program reached its 

15th and final year, and awarded 25 scholarships of $7,500 to student athletes all across the 

country celebrating their athletic and scholastic achievements. As in previous years, each of the 

25 winners was inducted into the SAMMY Hall of Fame and featured in a special milk mustache 

advertisement which appeared in USA Today, Sports Illustrated, and ESPN magazine. 

DC Comics also partnered with MilkPEP, leveraging the Green Lantern movie release with a 

print advertisement featuring Ryan Reynolds, who played the 

Green Lantern in the motion picture. Nine additional 

advertisements were produced for the teen audience, including 

Julianne Hough and the cast of Disney’s Good Luck Charlie.

Refuel with Chocolate Milk

As MilkPEP began to gradually shift its refuel focus away from 

high-school-aged athletes and towards the adult (18-34) 

audience, the Refuel with Chocolate Milk mobile tour was 

developed. The tour visited popular endurance sporting events, 

which included marathons, triathlons, bicycle races and soccer 

tournaments, and leveraged the scientific research on the refuel 

benefits of chocolate milk. Two Refuel with Chocolate Milk 

trucks traversed the country in 2011, attending 125 events to 

engage athletes, sample chocolate milk, and provide recovery tips and tools on the benefits of 

chocolate milk in exercise recovery. Millions of media impressions were garnered through the 

Refuel tour and local processors were able to engage and participate in the various tour events. 

The Refuel with Chocolate Milk Web site and social media campaign was launched as well in 

2011, growing the network of Refuel with chocolate milk advocates with “Team Refuel.” 

“Team Refuel” enabled everyday athletes to compete to receive Refuel gear and sponsorships, 

which drove Web site traffic and inspired a grassroots movement to spread the word about 

chocolate milk’s post workout 

benefits. Low fat chocolate milk 

offers the right mix of protein and 

carbohydrates to repair and refuel 

exhausted muscles, plus fluids and 

electrolytes to rehydrate and help 

replenish what is lost in sweat. 

19
Hispanic

The national Hispanic advertising campaign continued as part of the industry’s outreach to the 

growing Hispanic population, mirroring the general market programs and activities. 

Una Mas Cuenta (One More Counts), similar to the general market Pour One More campaign, 

educated Hispanic consumers and provided a simple action plan to help improve their family’s 

health and well-being. The campaign also encouraged Hispanic moms to pour one more serving 

of milk for herself and her family to help close the nutrient gap. 

Recognizing cultural differences and to meet 

the unique needs of this important target 

audience, MilkPEP launched a new television 

campaign that used animation to show both 

the physical and emotional power of adding 

one more glass of milk to help build a strong 

family. Former print campaign Milk 

Mustache celebrity mom Giselle Blondette 

was featured in a voice-over in the television 

advertisement.

MilkPEP also sponsored the first-ever Role 

Modeling Summit to explore the link between mothers, daughters, food, and health. The summit 

brought together an esteemed panel of moms, daughters, and health experts, including former 

First Daughter Jenna Bush Hager and Linda Fears, Editor-in-chief of Family Circle. 

Throughout the year, the Fluid Milk Board continued with their print advertisement campaign 

that featured Hispanic celebrities with the famous Milk Mustache. In addition to Victoria 

Justice, celebrities included Edith González, Marco Antonio Solis, Bárbara Bermudo, Doreen 

Colondres, and Sofia Vergara. 

Appendix G includes thumbnail images of the Fluid Milk Board’s promotional activities for 

Hispanic consumers in 2010.

Board Research and Development

The Business Development and Research committee (BDR) is a joint effort of the Fluid Milk 

Board, processors, and suppliers. This ongoing effort was established to address barriers to fluid 

milk consumption not targeted by the advertising, promotions, and public relations activities.

Over the years, BDR, formerly known as the Fluid Milk Strategic Thinking Initiative (FMSTI), 

has conducted market tests and studies in various business channels to develop proven ways to 

increase milk sales and subsequently turned these studies into customer-friendly processor 

materials which may be found at www.milkpep.org. 

20
MilkPEP conducted insightful research on breakfast segmentation and Refuel message strategy 

to lead the new campaign development. Ongoing research initiatives, such as the Consumption 

Tracker, Attitude and Awareness Tracker, All Channel Tracking, and the Annual School Survey, 

all help the industry to remain at the forefront of milk consumption trends and market place 

changes.

MilkPEP continued providing processors access to customizable National Programs and related 

media materials at www.milkpep.org to use in their own public relations efforts. Brochures, 

news releases, and other information on milk advertising and promotions were made available to 

consumers through the following Web sites: www.whymilk.com, www.bodybymilk.com, and 

www.eligeleche.com.

Complete reports, studies, executive summaries, and press releases for the Fluid Board’s ongoing 

processor initiatives are available for processors on the Web site www.milkpep.org. Customers 

can also visit www.milkdelivers.org, or call the milk hotline at 1-800-945-MILK (6455) for 

copies of presentations, videos, and printed materials.

As the Long Range Planning project continues to take root, focus on Breakfast at Home and 

Refuel in the coming years offer hope to reverse the decline of per capita milk consumption. 

21
Chapter 2

USDA Activities

The USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service’s (AMS) Dairy Programs has day-to-day oversight 

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

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

amendments, contracts, advertising campaigns, and investment plans. Approval of program 

materials is a major responsibility of AMS Dairy Programs. Program materials are monitored 

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

for Americans, and other legislation such as the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act. AMS 

Dairy Programs 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. 

AMS Dairy Programs continues to: ensure that the collection, accounting, auditing, and 

expenditure of promotion funds is consistent with the enabling legislation and orders; certify 

Qualified Programs; and provide for evaluation of the effectiveness of both promotion programs’ 

advertising campaigns. AMS Dairy Programs assists the boards in their assessment collection, 

compliance, and enforcement actions. 

Other AMS Dairy Programs responsibilities relate to nominating and appointing board members, 

amending the orders, conducting referenda, and conducting periodic management reviews. AMS 

Dairy Programs representatives attend full board and committee meetings, and other meetings 

of consequence to the program.

National Dairy Promotion and Research Board Oversight

Nominations and Appointments

The Board is composed of 38 members, including 36 domestic dairy producers and 2 dairy

importers, who administer the program. Board members serve 3-year terms, with no member 

serving more than two consecutive terms. Board members must be active dairy producers or 

dairy importers. Dairy producer members are selected by the Secretary from nominations 

submitted by producer organizations, general farm organizations representing dairy producers, 

Qualified Programs, or other interested parties. Dairy importer members are selected by the 

Secretary from nominations submitted by individual importers of dairy products or by 

organizations representing dairy importers.

A list of Dairy Board members appears in Appendix A–1. Appendix H–1 is a map depicting the 

12 geographic regions under the Dairy Promotion and Research Order (Dairy Order). 

Organic Exemption 

Effective February 14, 2005, any persons producing and marketing solely 100 percent organic 

products were exempted from paying assessments to any research and promotion program 

administered by the Agricultural Marketing Service (70 FR 2743, published January 14, 2005). 

22
The final rule amended Section 1150.157 of the Dairy Order. In States that have mandatory 

assessment laws, dairy producers are exempt only from the Federal assessment. Producers are 

still responsible for remittance of State assessments. In 2011, approximately 1,010 dairy 

producers were granted exemptions, representing approximately 1.6 billion pounds of 

production. The Dairy Order requires producers to re-apply annually to continue to receive the 

exemption.

Amendment to the Dairy Act 

Section 781 of the Dairy Act was amended in 2005 to allow the Dairy Board to obligate and 

expend funds for any activity to improve the environment and public health, and required the 

Secretary to review the impact of any such expenditure and include the review in the annual 

report to Congress.

The Dairy Board authorized the expenditure of up to $6 million during 2006 to fund a portion of 

the National Air Emissions Monitoring Study (NAEMS). The NAEMS is a multi-year research 

effort to collect air emission data and create tools that all dairies can use, whether they are 

participating in the Environmental Protection Agency Air Quality Compliance Agreement 

(Consent Agreement) or not, to determine whether their air emission levels are in excess of the 

Clean Air Act thresholds and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act, and Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act reporting 

requirements. The Consent Agreement was developed to offer protection to operations while 

research is conducted to determine the size and type of farms that may have regulatory 

responsibilities. Currently, little air emissions data exists for dairy operations.

Data collection for the study was completed during the first half of 2010, and Purdue University 

and principal investigators completed an initial summary of the data that was transferred to the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA will have up to 18 months to complete its 

data interpretation. The Dairy Board owns the equipment used to conduct the study, and at a 

May 2010 meeting, the Dairy Board passed a motion to donate the equipment to universities to 

be used for further research. Additionally, the Dairy Board will use $100,000 of the remaining 

NAEMS money to fund an interpretive summary that will compare the NAEMS data with 

previous studies, identify future research needs, create an outreach document, evaluate the 

NAEMS data quality in terms of completeness and representativeness, and determine 

relationships of other measured variables on farm emissions. 

Foreign Agricultural Service

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

development activities outside the United States to the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) 

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

contracts. AMS Dairy Programs also reviews USDEC contracts to ensure conformance with the 

Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 (Dairy Act), Dairy Order, and with established 

USDA policies. AMS Dairy Programs reviewed 52 USDEC contracts during 2011. 

23
Contracts

The Dairy Act and Dairy Order require that all contracts expending assessment funds be 

approved by the Secretary (7 CFR 1150.140). During 2011, Dairy Programs reviewed and 

approved 283 Dairy Board and Dairy Management Inc. (DMI) agreements, amendments, and 

annual plans. Appendix D–1 lists the contractors and corresponding board initiatives approved 

by USDA.

Contractor Audits 

In 2011, DMI retained the certified public accounting firm of Ernst & Young to audit the records 

of the following contractors: American-Mexican Marketing (export activities), North Carolina 

State University (product research), Symphony IRI Group, Inc. (market research), Team Services 

(strategic consulting), and Universal McCann Worldwide, Inc. (lactose free public relations). 

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 shall, in the manner prescribed by the order, 

collect an assessment based upon 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 is 15 cents per hundredweight of milk for commercial use or the 

equivalent thereof as determined by the Secretary.

The Dairy Act provides that dairy farmers can direct up to 10 cents of their 15-cent per 

hundredweight assessment to Qualified Programs. During 2011, the Dairy Board received 

about 5.04 cents per hundredweight of the 15-cent assessment.

Compliance

Compliance by responsible persons in filing reports and remitting assessments continues in a 

timely manner and at a high rate. No significant differences were discovered when comparing 

the audit results to what was reported by the responsible persons. The Dairy Board verifies that 

the credits claimed by responsible persons are actually sent to Qualified Programs. This 

verification is done by contract with each Qualified Program. When noncompliance exists, the 

Dairy Board takes initial action on the matter. If the Dairy Board is unsuccessful in resolving the 

violation, the matter is referred to USDA for further action. 

Qualified Programs

In 2011, Dairy Programs reviewed applications for continued qualification from 66 Qualified 

Programs. A list of the active Qualified Programs is provided in Appendix F. Consistent with 

its responsibility for monitoring the Qualified Programs, Dairy Programs obtained and reviewed 

income and expenditure data from each of the programs. The data reported from the Qualified 

Programs are included in aggregate form for 2011 in Appendix B–7 and Appendix B–8.

24
National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board Oversight

Nominations and Appointments

The 20 members of the Fluid Milk Board serve 3-year terms, with no member serving more than 

two consecutive terms. The Fluid Milk Promotion Order (Fluid Order) provides that no 

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

members who fill vacancies with a term of 18 months or less are permitted to serve 2 additional 

3-year terms. Fluid Milk Board members are selected by the Secretary from nominations 

submitted by fluid milk processors, interested parties, and eligible organizations. 

A list of current Fluid Milk Board members appears in Appendix A–2. Appendix H–2 shows a 

map depicting the 15 geographic regions under the Fluid Milk Order. 

Program Development

The Fluid Milk Board contracted directly with Deutsch Worldwide; Draftfcb; Weber Shandwick; 

and Siboney, U.S.A., to develop its mom and teen advertising, promotions, consumer 

education/public relations, and Hispanic advertising/public relations, respectively. 

Contractor Audits

The Fluid Milk Board retained the certified public accounting firm of Snyder, Cohn, Collyer, 

Hamilton & Associates, P.C., in 2011 to audit the records of Draftfcb, Inc., for the periods of 

January 1 through December 31, 2009; November 2010, March 2011, and August 2011 to 

determine if the agency had conformed to the financial compliance requirements specified in its 

agreement with the Board. 

The Board continues to enhance its internal contract control system in order to ensure that the 

amounts invoiced to the Board are in compliance with established contracts and procedures. 

Additionally, the Board has determined that it will begin to conduct audits of specified periods 

on all of its primary contractors each year. 

Compliance

Compliance by fluid milk processors in filing reports and remitting assessments continues in a 

timely manner and at a high rate. 

25
Chapter 3

Quantitative Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Marketing and Promotion 

Activities by the Milk Processor Education Program, Dairy 

Management, Inc., and Qualified Programs

The Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 (Dairy Act) and Fluid Milk Promotion Act of 

1990 (Fluid 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 complete the study. 

Chapter 3 summarizes the quantitative evaluation of the effectiveness of the dairy and fluid milk 

checkoff programs, specifically the marketing and promotion programs. 

Objectives of the Evaluation Study

The effectiveness of dairy promotion is evaluated with the following two key questions in mind: 

1. Have the demand-enhancing activities conducted by dairy producers, dairy importers, and 

fluid milk processors actually increased the demand for fluid milk and dairy products?

2. Is the dairy industry better off as a result of the marketing and promotion programs 

initiated by Dairy Management Inc. (DMI), the National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion 

Program, commonly referred to as the Milk Processor Education Program (MilkPEP) and 

the Qualified Dairy Product Promotion, Research, or Nutrition Education Programs

(QPs)? In other words, have these marketing and promotion programs generated 

sufficient additional dairy industry revenues to more than cover their associated costs?

Historically, the effectiveness of the dairy promotion programs have been measured through 

econometric studies focusing on the relationship between the consumption of dairy products and 

dairy checkoff promotion expenditures, controlling for all other factors (models of demand for 

dairy products). Economic returns to dairy producers, dairy importers, and fluid milk processors 

as a result of the changes in consumption generated by marketing and promotion activities are 

calculated using the parameters obtained from the demand models. The summary indicator of 

economic returns on investment is a benefit-cost ratio. 

This study, similar to previous studies (e.g., Kaiser, 2010), is based on econometric modeling 

and measures the impact of the checkoff programs with return-on-investment figures. The 

structural models of consumer demand proceed in a similar direction to prior studies, but are 

different in several important ways: 1) The structural model of consumption provides detail on 

individual dairy products as well as the aggregate of fluid milk and dairy products; 2) The 

effectiveness of promotion expenditures on U.S. dairy exports; and 3) The marketing strategies

involving industry partnerships are evaluated in this report. 

26
Checkoff Expenditures Made by DMI, MilkPEP, and QPs

Data on nominal checkoff expenditures between 1995 and 2011 were acquired from DMI, 

MilkPEP, and QPs. While the three entities are administratively distinct, they have similar 

objectives for enhancing dairy demand. Following other researchers, most notably Schmit and 

Kaiser (2004), we aggregate the demand-enhancing expenditures from all three entities.

The dairy checkoff programs use a variety of methods to reach consumers. Advertising dollars 

are directed to media outlets, namely 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. These 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. Non-advertising market 

expenditures not directed at the retail level of the marketing channel include crisis management, 

trade service communications, and strategic research activities. Programs for export 

development or promotion are included in the expenditure classifications as demand-enhancing 

activities. Export promotion was not explicitly considered in previous evaluations. 

Finally, a portion of the DMI, MilkPEP, and QP expenditures are classified as non-demandenhancing activities. These expenditures are excluded from the estimation of the impact of 

marketing and promotion expenditures on consumption. The non-demand-enhancing 

expenditures are for overhead, technical support, industry relations, and corporate technology.

Annual checkoff expenditures made by DMI, MilkPEP, and QPs over the period 1995 to 2011 

are depicted in Table 3-1. A pictorial view of annual checkoff expenditures made by DMI, 

MilkPEP, and QPs from 1995 to 2011 is presented in Figure 3-1. On average, approximately

$350 million was spent annually by the respective entities. All of these checkoff dollars 

combined are very large compared to those of other commodities’ promotion and research 

programs.

3 Median DMI expenditures were close to $90 million, ranging from $65.3 million to 

$99.7 million. Median MilkPEP expenditures were about $95 million, ranging from $38.7 

million to $101.9 million. Finally, median expenditures made by QPs were $170 million, nearly 

double the expenditures made by DMI and MilkPEP individually. 

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

available on a quarterly basis. The same is not true for the programmatic activities associated 

with the QPs. Consequently, to place the marketing and promotion expenditures made by DMI, 

MilkPEP, and QPs on a quarterly basis, interpolations of the QP data were necessary. The 

details of this interpolation process are described in the full technical document. The depiction 

of these data on a quarterly basis is important in allowing for more observations for the 

econometric analysis of demand for dairy products. 

3 To illustrate, expenditures associated with the cotton checkoff program are about $80 million (Williams et al., 

2011) and expenditures associated with the soybean checkoff program are about $100 million (Williams, 1999; and 

Williams, Capps, and Bessler, 2009).

27

 
Table 3-1. Annual Checkoff Expenditures from DMI, MilkPEP, and QPs, 1995 to 20111

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 $90,055 $97,023 $161,161 $348,238

2000 $88,068 $95,158 $169,654 $352,880

2001 $96,185 $95,112 $169,967 $361,264

2002 $92,012 $93,511 $174,857 $360,380

2003 $87,301 $95,688 $165,973 $348,962

2004 $82,871 $97,167 $173,434 $353,472

2005 $76,125 $83,527 $175,079 $334,731

2006 $65,296 $92,029 $182,443 $339,768

2007 $74,623 $101,125 $190,290 $366,038

2008 $99,051 $97,003 $182,887 $378,941

2009 $94,071 $95,109 $182,103 $371,283

2010 $87,512 $98,316 $204,380 $390,208

2011 $88,456 $91,289 $180,1412 $359,8862

1

Thousands of dollars spent on demand-enhancing and non-demand enhancing activities. 2 Projected.

Source: DMI, MilkPEP, USDA

Importantly, the QP expenditures are disaggregated into fluid milk, cheese, and butter to allow 

the impact of these expenditures on the demand for these products. These expenditures include 

not only advertising and sales promotion but also dairy foods and nutrition research, nutrition 

education, and market and economic research. With this measure, we obtain a depiction of 

demand-enhancing activities conducted by QPs. QP expenditures from the unified marketing

plan are not included as these go to DMI to fund the national program. In this way, double 

counting is avoided. 

Nominal seasonally-adjusted demand-enhancing expenditures from DMI, MilkPEP, and QPs on 

a quarterly basis from 1995 to 2011 are exhibited in Figure 3-2. These demand-enhancing 

expenditures varied from $51.0 million to $96.7 million per quarter, averaging $67.5 million per 

quarter.

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

MilkPEP, and QPs on a quarterly basis from 1995 to 2011 are exhibited in Figure 3-3. From 

1995 to 2006, nominal seasonally-adjusted quarterly marketing and promotion-expenditures for 

fluid milk ranged from roughly $24.2 million to $62.9 million per quarter. After 2006, 

marketing and promotion expenditures for fluid milk fell noticeably, ranging from $23.8 million 

to $32.1 million per quarter. On average, over the period of 1995-2011, nominal seasonallyadjusted demand enhancing expenditures for fluid milk were $27.9 million per quarter.

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

cheese ranged from $12.9 million to $27.3 million from 1995 to 2004, averaging $21.5 million 

28
Figure 3-1. Annual Checkoff Expenditures Made by DMI, MilkPEP, and QPs, 1995 to 2011

Source: DMI, MilkPEP, USDA

per quarter. From 2005 to the third quarter of 2008, marketing and promotion expenditures 

associated with cheese were much smaller compared to the period from 1995 to 2004. On 

average, expenditures on marketing and cheese promotion were $12.0 million during the period. 

Owing to partnerships with the pizza industry, notably Domino’s Pizza, expenditures on cheese 

increased from the fourth quarter of 2008 to the end of 2011. 

Figure 3-2. Nominal Seasonally-Adjusted Demand Enhancing Expenditures from DMI, 

MilkPEP, and QPs for All Dairy Products, 1995.1 to 2011.41

1

Includes expenditures not only for advertising and promotion but also for dairy foods and nutrition research, 

nutrition education, and market and economic research.

0

40,000

80,000

120,000

160,000

200,000

240,000

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

DMI MILKPEP QPS

50,000,000

60,000,000

70,000,000

80,000,000

90,000,000

100,000,000

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Thousands of Dollars

QPs

DMI

MilkPEP

Dollars

29
Figure 3-3. Nominal Seasonally-Adjusted Demand-Enhancing Expenditures for Fluid Milk 

from DMI, MilkPEP, and QPs, 1995.1 to 2011.4

Source: DMI, MilkPEP, QPs, and calculations by the authors.

During this latter time frame, nominal quarterly expenditures on marketing and promotion 

activities were on the order of $10.5 million to $19.4 million, averaging $14.5 million per 

quarter.

Figure 3-4. Nominal Seasonally-Adjusted Demand-Enhancing Expenditures for Cheese from 

DMI and QPs, 1995.1 to 2011.4

Source: DMI, QPs, and calculations by the authors.

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

50,000,000

60,000,000

70,000,000

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

8,000,000

12,000,000

16,000,000

20,000,000

24,000,000

28,000,000

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Dollars Dollars

30
As shown in Figure 3-5, nominal seasonally-adjusted quarterly expenditures on marketing and 

promotion of butter ranged from $60,000 to $6.0 million, averaging close to $975,000 per 

quarter over the period 1995 to 2011. Marketing and promotion expenditures for butter were 

roughly 2.7 percent of comparable expenditures for fluid milk and 5.4 percent of comparable 

expenditures for cheese. 

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

promotions to broader campaigns that relate to a number of dairy products. Examples of broader 

campaigns include the Child Nutrition and Fitness Initiative, Fuel Up to Play 60, and Action for 

Healthy Kids.

The U.S. has the potential to compete favorably in global dairy markets owing to its large and 

efficient production and processing industries. The export promotion programs of the U.S are 

indicative of determination to maintain and to possibly increase its market share in global dairy

markets. As shown in Figure 3-6a, nominal seasonally adjusted DMI expenditures directed to 

dairy exports on a quarterly basis ranged from just under $800 to close to $5 million. The trend 

in these DMI expenditures has been upward over the period of 1995 to 2011, averaging close to 

$1.9 million per quarter over this period. As exhibited in Figure 3-6b, nominal seasonallyadjusted USDA FAS expenditures directed to exports of dairy products on a quarterly basis 

varied from just under $310,000 to about $1.8 million over the period of 1997 to 2011. On 

average, USDA FAS expenditures were roughly $985,000 per quarter. As presented in Figure 3-

6c, nominal seasonally-adjusted DMI as well as USDA FAS expenditures ranged from $763 to 

$6.1 million per quarter, averaging $2.76 million on a quarterly basis over the period of 1995 to 

2011.

Figure 3-5. Nominal Seasonally-Adjusted Demand-Enhancing Expenditures for Butter from 

DMI and QPs, 1995.1 to 2011.4

Source: DMI, QPs, and calculations by the authors.

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Dollars

31
Figure 3-6a. Nominal Seasonally-Adjusted DMI Expenditures Directed to Exports of Dairy 

Products, 1995.1 to 2011.4

 

Source: DMI and calculations by the authors.

Figure 3-6b. Nominal Seasonally-Adjusted USDA FAS Expenditures Directed to Exports of 

Dairy Products, 1997.1 to 2011.41

 

1

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

interpolations were made for 1997 and 1998.

Source: USDA, FAS and calculations by the authors.

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

DMI_EXPORT_EXP_SA

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

USDA_FAS_EXPORT_EXP_SA

Dollars

Dollars

32
Figure 3-6c. Nominal Seasonally-Adjusted DMI and USDA FAS Expenditures Directed to 

Exports of Dairy Products, 1995.1 to 2011.4

 

Source: Calculations by authors.

 

DMI allocations to export enhancement represented about 70 percent of USDEC export 

promotion funding. DMI as well as USDA FAS export expenditures for dairy products have 

been highest in the fourth quarter of each year. 

Trends in Domestic Consumption

On average, over the 1995 to 2011 period, quarterly per capita commercial disappearances 

(consumption) of butter, cheese, and fluid milk were 1.2 pounds, 7.8 pounds, and 48 pounds 

respectively. The range of quarterly consumption for butter was from 0.9 pounds to 1.7 pounds, 

for cheese from 6.5 pounds to 9.1 pounds, and for fluid milk from 41.8 pounds to 53.3 pounds.

As exhibited in Figure 3-7, quarterly per capita consumption of fluid milk exhibits a definitive 

downward trend as well as a definitive seasonal pattern. Over the time period 1995 to 2011, the 

range of commercial disappearance of fluid milk on a per capita basis was from 42 pounds per 

quarter to 54 pounds per quarter, averaging roughly 48 pounds. Given the conversion of 8.6 

pounds per gallon of for milk, the per capita consumption of fluid milk was about 5.5 gallons per 

quarter on average.

As depicted in Figure 3-8, quarterly per capita consumption of cheese exhibits a definitive 

upward trend as well as a definitive seasonal pattern. Over the time period 1995 to 2011, the 

range of commercial disappearance of cheese on a per capita basis was from 6.5 pounds per 

quarter to 9.1 pounds per quarter, averaging about 7.8 pounds. 

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

DMI_USDA_EXPORT_EXP_SA

Dollars

33
Figure 3-7: Per Capita Consumption of Fluid Milk, 1995.1 to 2011.4

 

Source: USDA

As exhibited in Figure 3-9, quarterly per capita consumption of butter exhibits a definitive 

upward trend as well as a definitive seasonal pattern. Over the time period 1995 to 2011, the 

range of commercial disappearance of butter on a per capita basis was from 0.9 pounds per 

quarter to 1.7 pounds per quarter, averaging close to 1.2 pounds. 

Figure 3-8. Per Capita Consumption of Cheese, 1995.1 to 2011.4

 

Source: USDA

6.4

6.8

7.2

7.6

8.0

8.4

8.8

9.2

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

40

42

44

46

48

50

52

54

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Pounds Pounds

34
Figures 3-10 and 3-11 display the quarterly per capita domestic commercial disappearance of all 

dairy products since 1995 on a fat basis and on a skim solids basis. The per capita consumption 

measures yield quite different descriptive statistics. On average, on a fat basis, the commercial 

disappearance of all dairy products amounted to 148 pounds per quarter, ranging from 136 

pounds to 160 pounds per quarter. On a skim solids basis, on average, the commercial 

disappearance of all dairy products amounted to 138 pounds per quarter, ranging from 131

pounds to 145 pounds per quarter. The correlation of these two measures, although positive, is 

only 0.34.

Trends in Dairy Exports

To maintain consistency with the data used in the analysis of the consumption of fluid milk and 

dairy products, data from USDA are used for analysis of dairy exports on a fat basis and on a 

skim solids basis. These data correspond to estimates of commercial exports. An examination of 

the dairy export data suggests that the growth in total U.S. dairy exports over the 1995 to 2011 

period was the result, in large part, of strong growth in exports of low-fat dairy products like

nonfat dry milk. On a milk equivalent skim solids basis, the data show that the growth in U.S. 

dairy exports has been manifestly exponential from an average 1.6 billion pounds per quarter in 

1995 to just over an average of 8.5 billion pounds per quarter in 2011 (Figure 3-12). Over the 

same period, however, measured on a milk equivalent fat basis, average quarterly U.S. dairy 

exports followed a positive but more linear and much less robust trend from a quarterly average 

of 887 million pounds in 1995 to nearly 2.4 billion pounds in 2011 (Figure 3-12).

Figure 3-9. Per Capita Consumption of Butter, 1995.1 to 2011.4

 

Source: USDA

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Pounds

35
Figure 3-10. Per Capita Consumption of All Dairy Products on a Milk Equivalent Fat 

Basis,1995.1 to 2011.4

 

Source: USDA and calculations by the authors.

Figure 3-11. Per Capita Consumption of All Dairy Products on a Skim Solids Basis, 1995.1 to 

2011.4

 

Source: USDA and calculations by the authors.

135

140

145

150

155

160

165

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

130

132

134

136

138

140

142

144

146

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Pounds Pounds

 

36
Figure 3-12. U.S. Dairy Commercial Exports on a Milk Equivalent Fat Basis and Skim Solids 

Basis, 1995.1 to 2011.4

Methodology for Analysis of Demand Relationships 

The primary objective of advertising and non-advertising marketing activities conducted by 

MilkPEP, DMI, and QPs over the years has been to shift out the demand curve for fluid milk and 

manufactured dairy products. The first relevant question, then, is whether marketing activities 

actually shift out the demand for fluid milk and manufactured dairy products. If the answer to 

this question is yes, then the second question is whether or not the rightward shift in the demand 

for fluid milk and manufactured dairy products has benefited the fluid milk processors, dairy 

producers, and dairy importers who pay for the program. If the answer to the first question is 

“no,” then the answer to the second question is “no” as well. If the answer to the first question 

is “yes,” the answer to the second question is not necessarily “yes” because any

consequent increase in revenues to processors producers may or may not be sufficient to cover 

the costs of the programmatic activities associated with MilkPEP, DMI, and QPs.

The model concentrates on the retail level of the marketing chain for the following reasons: 1) 

consumers are the recipients of the advertising and promotion messages, and it is necessary to 

understand how their behavior changes in response to those messages; 2) data are plentiful and 

relatively free of major structural changes so as to allow a rigorous analysis of the demand for 

fluid milk and manufactured dairy products; and 3) this analysis yields a current picture of the 

impacts of programmatic activities of MilkPEP, DMI, and QPs on the demand for fluid milk and 

manufactured dairy products.

Demand for Fluid Milk

Dairy checkoff program expenditures take place within a challenging competitive marketplace

where consumers choose among a variety of foods and beverages in various purchase locations.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Million Pounds

Skim Solids Basis

Fat Basis

37
The idea is to control for variables that may affect demand, thereby isolating the impact of 

marketing efforts alone on fluid milk consumption. The marginal or incremental effects of 

program expenditures over time on fluid milk consumption are then obtained. Of particular 

interest is the percentage change in consumption due to unit percentage changes in marketing

and promotion expenditures.

All factors must be accounted for in a quantitative analysis of market demand to accurately 

isolate (or to minimize confounding) the impact of advertising and non-advertising marketing 

activities. The market demand function of fluid milk incorporates the following factors: 

1. The retail price of fluid milk

2. The retail prices of substitute/complementary products, in particular the prices of other 

non-alcoholic beverages (bottled water, fruit juice, and soy beverage);

3. Disposable personal income

4. Inflation

5. Population

6. Changes in demographics or population dynamics, specifically in regard to proportion of 

the population of children 0 to 4, 5 to 13, and 14 to 17 years of age

7. The generic demand-enhancing expenditures for fluid milk made by MilkPEP and DMI; 

8. Advertising or promotional expenditures associated with competing beverage 

manufacturers, notably bottled water, fruit juice, and soy beverage

9. food expenditures in the away from home market

10. Branded fluid milk advertising expenditures

11. Seasonality.

Through this demand specification, we filter out the effects of other factors and directly quantify 

the net impact of advertising and non-advertising marketing activities in conjunction with the 

programs of MilkPEP, DMI, and QPs on the retail consumption of fluid milk. 

Retail level prices of fluid milk products capture own-price effects of consumption. Holding all 

factors invariant, as retail prices of fluid milk change, consumption of fluid milk is expected to 

change in the opposite direction. As economic theory suggests, prices of competing or 

complementary products as well as disposable personal incomes of consumers also may affect 

the consumption of fluid milk. In recent times, disposable personal incomes of consumers have 

been negatively impacted by the downturn or sluggish growth in the economy. Over the past 

decade, the proportion of pre-school aged children in the population has declined. We also 

consider the impact of the proportion of the population of children 5 to 13 years of age and 14 to 

17 years of age on the demand for fluid milk. In addition, we must address the potential impact 

of marketing activities of competing beverages. The realization is that MilkPEP, DMI, and QPs 

are not the only groups engaged in generic marketing programs. Indeed, both dairy farmers and 

fluid milk processors initiated generic marketing programs to combat marketing activities from 

other beverage manufacturers. We must account as well for away from home eating and drinking 

trends given that roughly half of the share of the consumer dollar spent on food and beverages 

occurs away from home. Fluid milk consumption may be negatively impacted by the lack of 

varieties of fluid milk products in away from home establishments as well as by the expanding 

availability of fluid milk alternatives in the away from home market. Finally, generic marketing 

38
and promotion effects of fluid milk processors, dairy producers, dairy importers, and the QPs are 

expected to increase the consumption of fluid milk, holding all other factors constant. Branded 

fluid milk advertising expenditures also may positively impact fluid milk consumption. 

The generic fluid milk marketing activities, including fluid milk advertising and non-advertising 

marketing activities, include all media activities such as television, print, radio, outdoor, and 

Internet advertising by MilkPEP and DMI, as well as health and nutrition educational programs, 

public relations, school milk programs, food service programs, retail programs, trade service 

communications, and other miscellaneous activities. The advertising and non-advertising 

marketing efforts represent demand-enhancing activities of MilkPEP, DMI, and the QPs.

The own-price elasticity for fluid milk was estimated to be -0.0619, meaning that for every 10.0

percent change in the price of fluid milk relative to the price of non-alcoholic beverages, per 

capita fluid milk consumption changes by 0.619 percent in the opposite direction. The demand 

for fluid milk is inelastic, that is, relatively unresponsive to price changes. This result is 

consistent with economic theory and with existing literature. For example, Kaiser (2010) 

estimated the own-price elasticity of fluid milk to be -0.126 based on quarterly data from 1995 to 

2009. Cakir and Balagtas (2010) estimated the own-price elasticity of fluid milk to be much 

higher (in absolute value) at -0.769.

The cross-price elasticity for fluid milk with respect to cheese was estimated to be positive at 

0.0115, in accordance with our expectations. However, this cross-price elasticity is not 

statistically different from zero. Cakir and Balagtas (2010) also found this substitution 

relationship between cheese and fluid milk. Additionally, Davis, Dong, Blayney, and Owens 

(2010) found the existence of substitution relationships among dairy product categories. 

The percentages of the population of children of various age classifications were key 

determinants affecting fluid milk consumption. A 1.0 percent rise in the proportion of children 

under five years of age results in a 1.15 percent increase in fluid milk consumption. The impact 

of school-age pre-adolescent children on demand is slightly less. A one percent change in the 

proportion of children between 5 and 13 years of age results in a 0.95 percent change in fluid 

milk consumption. The proportion of children between 14 and 17 years of age are likewise 

positively associated with milk consumption. The percent change in demand is 0.95 percent for 

a 1.0 percent change in the proportion of children between 14 and 17 years of age, almost 

precisely the same as for school age pre-adolescent children. Clearly, econometric evidence 

exists to demonstrate that pre-school, pre-adolescent, and adolescent children are important 

drivers of fluid milk consumption.

Per capita disposable income was a positive but not a statistically significant factor associated 

with per capita fluid milk consumption. Income elasticity was estimated to be 0.0469. Thus, we 

find evidence to support the contention that fluid milk is a necessary good, economically 

speaking. Kaiser (2010), estimated the income elasticity of demand for fluid milk to be 0.13. 

Alviola and Capps (2010) estimated the income elasticity of fluid milk to be -0.0136. 

Also, we provide evidence that the percentage of total food and beverage expenditures associated 

with away from home eating was not a statistically significant factor affecting per capita fluid 

39
milk consumption. Kaiser (2010) found that this factor was a notable determinant, with the 

elasticity estimated to be -0.685. Our elasticity estimate of -0.1911 was not statistically different 

from zero. 

In regard to seasonality, per capita fluid milk consumption was highest in the fourth quarter. 

Relative to the fourth quarter, per capita consumption of fluid milk was lower by 2.0 percent in 

the first quarter, 6.0 percent in the second quarter, and 5.0 percent in the third quarter. 

The impacts of advertising for fruit juice, soy beverage, and bottled water were negative, as 

expected, on per capita consumption of fluid milk. The short-run elasticity of advertising for fruit 

juice was estimated to be -0.00457, while the cumulative or long-run elasticity was estimated to 

be -0.08371. The optimal cumulative effects of advertising on fruit juice were over a period of 

eight quarters. Similarly, the short-run elasticity of advertising for soy beverage was calculated 

to be -0.00080, while the long-run elasticity was calculated to be -0.01469. The optimal

cumulative effect of advertising on soy beverage was over a period of eight quarters as well. The 

short-run elasticity of advertising associated with bottled water was estimated to be -0.00038, 

while the long-run elasticity of advertising for bottled water was calculated to be -0.00350. The 

optimal cumulative effect of advertising for bottled water was over a period of five quarters.

Demand for Cheese

The market demand function for cheese incorporates the following factors: 

1. Retail price of cheese

2. Retail prices of substitute/complementary products, in particular, the price of bakery 

products, the price of wine, and the price of whole milk

3. Disposable personal income

4. Inflation

5. Population

6. Demand-enhancing marketing expenditures for cheese from DMI and the QPs

7. Seasonality.

The retail price of cheese captures own-price effects of consumption. Holding all factors 

constant, as the retail price of cheese changes, consumption of cheese is expected to change in 

the opposite direction. As economic theory suggests, prices of competing or complementary 

products as well as disposable personal incomes of consumers also may affect the consumption 

of cheese. Further, generic marketing and non-marketing efforts of cheese are expected to 

increase the consumption of cheese, holding all factors invariant. The demand-enhancing 

activities pertaining to cheese from 2009 to 2011 largely have been geared to partnerships in the 

pizza industry. 

The own-price elasticity for cheese is estimated to be -0.1051, meaning that for a 10.0 percent 

change in the price of cheese, per capita cheese consumption changes by 1.051 percent in the 

opposite direction. Similar to the case for fluid milk, the demand for cheese is inelastic, that is, 

relatively unresponsive to price changes. This result is consistent with economic theory and with 

40
existing literature. Cakir and Balagtas (2010) estimated the own-price elasticity of cheese to be

-0.426, which is much larger than our estimated figure. 

The cross-price elasticity for cheese with respect to bakery products is estimated to be 0.4016, 

indicating that cheese and bakery products are substitutes. This result is at odds with the 

expectation of a complementary relationship between bakery products and cheese. The crossprice elasticity of cheese with respect to wine was estimated to be -0.7168, indicating that cheese 

and wine are complements. This result is in accordance with the expectations. Additionally, 

these cross-price elasticities are much larger than the own-price elasticity for cheese. 

Consequently, evidence exists to indicate that cheese consumption is more sensitive to changes 

in the price of bakery products and to changes in the price of wine than to the price of cheese

itself.

Moreover, the cross-price elasticity of cheese with respect to fluid milk is -0.1113, indicating 

that cheese and fluid milk are complements. This result is at odds with Cakir and Balagtas 

(2010), who estimated the cross-price elasticity between cheese and fluid milk to be 0.349.

Per capita disposable income was a positive and statistically significant factor on per capita 

cheese consumption. The income elasticity of demand for cheese was estimated to be 0.5559. 

Thus, we find evidence to support the contention that cheese is a necessary good in economic 

parlance. 

In regard to seasonality, per capita cheese consumption was highest in the fourth quarter. 

Relative to the fourth quarter, per capita consumption of cheese was lower by 7.0 percent in the 

first quarter, 5.0 percent in the second quarter, and 4.0 percent in the third quarter. 

Demand for Butter

The market demand function for butter incorporates the following factors: 

1. Retail price of butter

2. Retail prices of substitute/complementary products, in particular the price of margarine 

and the price of bakery products

3. Disposable personal income

4. Inflation

5. Population

6. Food expenditures spent in away-from-home outlets

7. Generic expenditures for butter from DMI and the QPs

8. Seasonality. 

The own-price elasticity for butter was estimated to be -0.0993, meaning that for a 10.0 percent 

change in the price of butter, per capita butter consumption changes by 0.99 percent in the 

opposite direction. Similar to the situation for fluid milk and cheese, the demand for butter is 

inelastic, that is, relatively unresponsive to price changes. This result is consistent with 

economic theory and with the existing literature. Cakir and Balagtas (2010) estimated the ownprice elasticity of butter to be -0.037, which is much smaller than our estimate.

41
The cross-price elasticity for butter with respect to margarine was estimated to be 0.8663, 

indicating that butter and margarine, as expected, are substitutes. The cross-price elasticity of 

butter with respect to bakery products was estimated to be -0.6877, indicating that butter and 

bakery products, as expected, are complements. These respective cross-price elasticities are 7 to 

10 times as large as the own-price elasticity for butter. Hence, evidence exists to indicate that 

butter consumption is far more responsive to changes in the price of margarine and to changes in 

the price of bakery products than to changes in the price of butter. 

Per capita disposable income was a positive and statistically significant factor on per capita 

butter consumption. The income elasticity of demand for butter was estimated to be 2.173, 

indicating that butter is a luxury good in economic parlance. The percentage of total 

expenditures for food away-from-home was a negative and statistically significant factor on per 

capita butter consumption. The associated elasticity for this determinant of butter consumption 

was estimated to be -1.227. Per capita butter consumption is quite sensitive to changes in real per 

capita income and to changes in the percentage of total food and beverage expenditures in the 

away-from-home market. 

In regard to seasonality, per capita butter consumption was highest in the fourth quarter. Relative 

to the fourth quarter, per capita consumption of butter was lower by nearly 27 percent in the first 

quarter, 32 percent in the second quarter, and 20 percent in the third quarter. 

Demand for All Dairy Products

Similar to the previous evaluation of the MilkPEP and Dairy Program conducted by Kaiser 

(2010), we also develop and estimate the aggregate demand function for all dairy products and 

dairy ingredients. Besides the domestic demand-enhancing expenditures of DMI, MilkPEP, and 

QPs, factors hypothesized to influence per capita all dairy products demand included seasonality, 

the CPI for all dairy products, and per capita disposable income. Similar to the aforementioned 

demand models for fluid milk, cheese, and butter, the all-dairy products models on a skim solids 

basis and on a fat basis were estimated on a per capita basis to control for the influence of 

population. To account for the impact of inflation, all variables were deflated by the CPI for all 

items. 

On a skim solids basis, the own-price elasticity of demand was estimated to be between -0.1655, 

but on a fat basis, the own-price elasticity was estimated to be -0.0553. Our own-price elasticity 

on a skim solids basis and our own-price elasticity on a fat basis were at odds with Kaiser 

(2010), who estimated these elasticities to be close to -0.30 on a skim solids basis and -0.22 on a 

fat basis. Our income elasticities were estimated to be 0.30 on a skim solids basis and 0.42 on a 

fat basis. However, these income elasticities are quite different from Kaiser (2010). His 

elasticities ranged from 0.17 on a skim solids basis to 0.95 on a fat basis. 

Seasonality was evident in the U.S. per capita consumption of all dairy products on a skim solids 

basis and on a fat basis. Relative to the fourth quarter, per capita consumption of all dairy 

products on a skim solids basis was higher in the second quarter by slightly more than 1 percent 

and higher in the third quarter by 2 percent. No statistically significant differences between the 

first quarter and the fourth quarter were found for per capita consumption of all dairy products on 

42
a skim solids basis. On a fat basis, relative to the fourth quarter, per capita consumption of all 

dairy products was lower by nearly 7 percent in the first quarter and lower by nearly 2 percent in 

the second quarter. No significant differences were evident for the third quarter relative to the 

fourth quarter for per capita consumption of all dairy products on a fat basis.

U.S. Dairy Commercial Export Demand

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

exports, we specify and estimate two U.S. dairy export demand models using two different 

measures of dairy exports: 1) the USDA measure of dairy exports on milk equivalent skim solids 

basis; and 2) the USDA measure of dairy exports on a milk equivalent fat basis. Drivers of 

demand included lags of the ratio of the Oceania export butter price to the U.S. butter price on a 

fat basis; lags of the ratio of the Oceania export price for skim milk powder to the U.S. nonfat 

dry milk price on a skim solids basis; lags of the measure of world income calculated as the trade 

weighted, real gross domestic products of major export regions; and inertia or stickiness of dairy 

exports in world markets. Simply put, when U.S. prices are low (high) relative to Oceania export 

prices, more (less) is exported. Butter prices are used as proxies for prices of exports on a milk 

fat basis, and nonfat dry milk and skim milk powder prices are used as proxies for prices on a 

skim solids basis.

The own-price elasticity of the ratio of the skim milk powder Oceania export price to the price of 

non-fat dry milk U.S. price lagged one quarter was estimated to be -0.3238. The own-price 

elasticity of the ratio of the Oceania export butter price to the U.S. price of butter lagged one 

quarter was estimated to be -0.2030. This set of findings suggests that dairy exports are not very 

sensitive to changes in the respective ratios of prices. However, dairy exports are sensitive to 

world income with a one-quarter lag. The elasticity with respect to world income was estimated 

to be 1.097 on a skim solids basis and 1.024 on a fat basis. Owing to the significance of the one

quarter lag of exports on a skim solids basis as well as on a fat basis, inertia of dairy exports in 

world markets was substantiated.

Impacts of Marketing and Promotion Activities on Demand for Dairy Products

The econometric evidence indicates a significant association between consumer demand and 

checkoff program expenditures, for all dairy products in the aggregate and for individual product 

categories. Expenditures have a modest effect on demand during the quarter in which it is made. 

The longer term cumulative impact is measurably larger than the contemporaneous effect. The 

cumulative effects vary across the specific product type.

The key indicator of the impact of marketing and promotion expenditures on demand, and the 

elasticity with respect to these demand enhancing activities is reported. This elasticity 

corresponds to the percentage change in consumption given a 1.0 percent change in marketing 

and promotion expenditures, while holding all other variables constant. 

43
Fluid Milk

The checkoff expenditures from milk processors, dairy producers, dairy importers, and QPs

indeed boosted per capita consumption of fluid milk. The short-run elasticity of demand with 

respect to the demand enhancing activities of was estimated to be 0.002, while the long run 

elasticity was estimated to be 0.058. In other words, for a 10 percent increase in the demand

enhancing expenditure, cumulatively the demand for milk rose by 0.58 percent. The cumulative 

effect of the fluid milk demand enhancing activities was over a period of twelve quarters. Kaiser 

(2010) estimated the elasticity for generic milk marketing and promotion activities conducted to 

be 0.037. Schmit and Kaiser (2004) and Cakir and Balagtas (2010) found statistically 

significant advertising elasticities of 0.040 and 0.093 for fluid milk. Differences in elasticities 

may be attributed to differences in demand enhancing activities.

Cheese 

The short run elasticity of cheese demand with respect to demand enhancing activities was 

estimated to be 0.00091, while the long run elasticity was 0.028. Hence a 10 percent change in 

expenditures on cheese promotion is expected to have an impact on consumption of nearly 0.30 

percent. The optimal cumulative effect of these demand enhancing activities was over a period 

of 11 quarters. Our results are consistent with Schmit and Kaiser (2004), who estimated the 

advertising elasticity of cheese to be statistically significant and about 0.013. Cakir and 

Balagtas (2010) estimated this elasticity to be 0.046, albeit not statistically different from zero. 

Butter

The short run demand enhancing elasticity of demand for butter was estimated to be 0.0015, 

while the long run elasticity was estimated to be 0.013. Thus a 10 percent increase in promotion 

spending is associated with a cumulative or long-run rise of consumption by 0.13 percent. The 

optimal cumulative effect of these demand enhancing activities was over a period of six quarters. 

Our result is lower than that found by Cakir and Balagtas (2010), who estimated the advertising 

elasticity of butter to be 0.209. 

All Dairy Products

The aggregation of dairy products into a single quantitative model of demand response requires 

that the unlike goods be measured on a common unit basis. Dairy products can be measured on a 

skim solids basis or on a fat basis. The estimation results for both measures are similar to each 

other, but not identical, and both are reported for completeness. With either quantity indicator, 

checkoff program expenditures have a significant influence on demand in both the short run and 

the long run. Hence the combined efforts of milk processors, dairy farmers, dairy importers, and 

QPs boosted per capita consumption of all dairy products. 

The short run elasticity associated with demand enhancing activities was estimated to be 0.00040 

on a skim solids basis and 0.00252 on a fat basis. The long run elasticity associated with demand

enhancing activities was estimated to be 0.02294 on a skim solids basis and 0.02351 on a fat 

basis. The optimal cumulative effect of demand enhancing activities was over 16 quarters on a 

44
skim solids basis and 5 quarters on a fat basis. Kaiser (2010) provided separate estimates of 

elasticities for generic dairy advertising expenditures (0.036 on a skim solids basis and 0.056 on 

a fat basis) and for generic dairy non-advertising marketing expenditures (0.016 on a skim solids 

basis and 0.017 on a fat basis). 

Dairy Exports

The cumulative impact of USDEC expenditures on dairy exports was statistically significant on a 

skim solids basis and on a fat basis. The elasticity associated with USDEC export promotion 

expenditures was estimated to be 0.03112 for dairy exports on a skim solids basis and 0.06075 

on a fat basis. The optimal lag of the cumulative impacts of these expenditures was 5 quarters 

for dairy exports on a skim solids basis and 6 quarters on a fat basis.

Benefit-Cost Ratios

To calculate retail benefit-cost ratios (BCR), similar to Capps, Bessler, and Williams (2004), 

Williams and Capps (2006), Williams, Capps, and Palma (2008), and Williams, Capps, and 

Dang (2010), we use the demand enhancing relationships for fluid milk, cheese, butter, and all 

dairy products attributed to the checkoff program to derive an estimate of the change in 

consumption. The efforts of the checkoff programs via the demand enhancing advertising and 

non-advertising marketing activities increased the commercial disappearance, all other factors 

invariant. Over the period 1995 to 2011, the incremental commercial disappearance was 

calculated to be 54.3 billion pounds for fluid milk; 4.3 billion pounds for cheese; 0.3 billion 

pounds for butter; between 62.7 billion pounds for all dairy products on a skim solids basis; and 

68.9 billion pounds for all dairy products on a fat basis. 

The incremental commercial consumption of fluid milk amounts to 5.8 percent of the total 

cumulative consumption of fluid milk over the 1995 to 2011 period. Put another way, the efforts 

of DMI, MilkPEP, and QPs led to a 5.8 percent increase in fluid milk consumption, more than it 

would have been over the period 1995 to 2011. Similarly, the demand enhancing marketing 

activities of DMI and QPs resulted in a 2.8 percent incremental increase in cheese consumption 

and a 1.4 percent incremental increase in butter consumption, all other factors held constant, 

from 1995 to 2011. Finally, the efforts of DMI, MilkPEP, and QPs led to a 2.3 percent 

incremental increase in all dairy products on a skim solids basis and a 2.4 percent incremental 

increase in all dairy products on a fat basis over the period 1995 to 2011.

These benefits are calculated at the retail level. An important question is how much of the 

increased revenues generated at the retail level actually reaches program funders. To calculate 

the BCR for milk processors and dairy producers, we multiply USDA estimates of the farm share 

of the retail dollar for fluid milk, cheese, butter, and all dairy products by the corresponding 

retail BCRs. On average, the farm share of the retail dollar over the period 2000 to 2010 was 

50.27 percent for fluid milk, 30.82 percent for cheese, 41.73 percent for butter; and 29.55 percent 

for all dairy products. Therefore, the subsequent BCRs at the farm level were calculated to be 

3.95 for fluid milk; 4.43 for cheese; 6.26 for butter; 12.81 for all dairy products on a skim solids 

basis; and 14.14 for all dairy products on a fat basis. A summary of the farm-level benefit-cost 

ratios is exhibited in Table 3-2.

45
Table 3-2: Calculated Farm-Level Benefit-Cost Ratios, 1995-2011

Farm Level

All Dairy (skim solids) 12.81 

All Dairy (fat basis) 14.14 

Fluid milk 3.95

Cheese 4.43

Butter 6.26

Note: The ratios are dollars of revenue generated per checkoff dollar spent on demand

enhancing activities.

Our farm level BCR for fluid milk (3.95) was lower than the corresponding BCR of 8.88 

calculated by Kaiser (2010). On the other hand, our farm-level BCRs for all dairy products, 

14.14 (fat basis) and 12.81 (skim solids basis), were higher than the corresponding BCRs of 6.20 

on a skim solids basis and 9.85 on a fat basis calculated by Kaiser (2010). The BCRs calculated 

by Kaiser (2010) were for the period 1995 to 2009. Kaiser (2010) did not calculate any BCRs 

for cheese and butter. Importantly, our BCRs are calculated based upon expenditures made only 

for demand enhancing activities.

The empirical results from the dairy export demand model provides strong statistical evidence 

that the USDEC promotion enhancement expenditures have shifted out the world demand for 

U.S. dairy exports. A critical question, however, is whether the benefit of the increase in exports 

achieved is greater than the cost of the promotion over the years. Of course, not all the benefits 

from the additional dairy exports generated by the export promotion expenditures have accrued 

to dairy producers over the years. Others also have benefited including exporters, milk 

processors, dairy product manufacturers, and others along the supply chain. 

When using export data measured on a milk equivalent skim solids basis and a milk equivalent

fat basis, the return to producers was calculated to be $15.90 and $8.12 per dollar spent on export 

promotion. Thus, the USDEC dairy export promotion program added more to producer revenues 

in its effects on low fat dairy product exports than on higher fat content export products. 

The relatively high BCRs for export promotion are consistent with those found for other export 

promotion programs (see, for example, Williams, 2012; Williams, Capps, and Bessler, 2009; 

Rusmevichientong and Kaiser, 2009; and Rosson, Hammig, and Jones, 1986). In general, the 

return to export promotion per dollar often is found to be higher than for domestic promotion. 

Our results support this pattern for dairy exports on a skim solids basis but not on a fat basis.

In the DMI partnership activities funds are provided to firms that use dairy ingredients in their 

products or to retailing outlets that position and market dairy products. Pizza restaurants have 

been heavily involved in partnerships in recent years. Because the partnership programs have a 

short history and quantitative data specifically for the partner firms is not available, a BCR of the 

type presented previously in this report is not available. However, a related ratio can be 

estimated. The fact that 25 percent of cheese consumed in the U.S. is on pizza provides 

relevance for the use of the demand model for cheese as an approach to obtain, albeit indirectly, 

a benefit-cost of the partnership. 

46
To investigate whether there was an associated change in the BCR, we examined the demand 

model for cheese over the period 1995-2011 compared to the period 1995-2008. In terms of the 

responsiveness of the quantity of cheese consumed with respect to DMI expenditures, there was 

no significant difference in the advertising elasticity of promotion expenditures. Because of the 

stability in the market structure, it is reasonable to apply the advertising elasticity in a calculation 

of a BCR to sub-periods, before and after the partnerships. During 2009-2011, the resulting 

BCR was calculated to be 7.7 to 1, a notable increase compared to a BCR of 3.9 to 1 during 

1995-2008 before the partnerships were in place.

Partnerships with the Dairy Industry and Retailers

Our approach to evaluation is to engage a specific partnership in detail, providing a firm level 

analysis to the extent possible. Marketing and advertising firms often provide client companies 

with measures of the impact of a campaign; however those studies are typically confidential and 

have not been provided to us. Information about sales, volume of dairy products used, and the 

nature of the promotion messages have been provided and analyzed. 

DMI’s strategic partner firms operate within the general business environment - a challenge in 

recent years due to the economic downturn. DMI has undertaken strategic partnerships with 

retailers and manufacturers, with the retail partners coming from both the restaurant channel and 

supermarket channel. In each partnership, DMI’s expenditure is matched several times over by 

resources invested by the private sector partner. Specific examples of the partnerships are as 

follows.

The partnership activities with manufacturers include a strategic partnership in 2009 with H.P. 

Hood to develop a low fat milk product and to create innovative lactose-free products. With 

General Mills in 2009, the Yoplait Frozen Smoothies line was developed and launched with the 

assistance of DMI. 

The leading partnership activity involving supermarket retailers was the Dairy Aisle 

Reinvention. This category management program aimed at increasing overall sales of dairy 

products; this project was conducted over a four-year period from 2006 to 2009. Although the 

Reinvention partnership changed assortments and store shelf arrangements for various retailers, 

the funding originated from manufacturers, notably the Dannon Company, Kraft Foods, 

Shamrock Farms, and Nestle. This program intended to support the introduction of innovative 

dairy products, reduce clutter and enhance traffic flow in the supermarket dairy aisle, increase 

shopper engagement, and as a result, to increase total dairy category sales. More specifically, 

dairy products were arranged based on meal occasion to increase the time shoppers spent in the 

dairy section, to enhance purchase frequency and to increase category sales. As a result of this 

program, space allocated in the aisle was expanded and the benefits of dairy products were 

communicated to the consumer. Also, different ways to use dairy products were explained and 

recipes were made available to encourage purchases. 

Restaurant businesses involved with the DMI partnerships are mainly quick-serve restaurants 

and nationally known brands. The Domino’s Pizza activity is assessed in depth in this study. 

Also within the pizza industry, a partnership with Pizza Hut in 2002 led to the “Summer of 

47
Cheese” promotion program. A three-year partnership with McDonald’s supported menu 

development in coffee beverages, Angus cheese burgers, and single-serve milk in resealable 

plastic containers. Additionally, McDonald’s developed McCafe, a specialty coffee line, which 

uses up to 80 percent milk in the product. A partnership with Starbucks to help develop and 

launch the line of Vivanno Smoothies featured the use of dairy ingredients, accounting for more 

than 3.7 million pounds of whey protein annually.

Most of the partnership resources have been targeted at the restaurant channel. The highly 

competitive quick-serve restaurant companies regularly promote new items and features, so it 

stands to reason that there is great potential for funds from dairy producers to be leveraged well 

if they are used in developing an innovation that is promoted on national media and sold in 

nationwide outlets. When the partnerships began, U.S. national income was growing, along with 

consumer expenditures on eating away from home. However, the economic downturn of 2008 

may have interrupted this trend as income constraints led to households eating out less, thus 

affecting the restaurant channel more than the rest of the food industry. 

Since the aforementioned strategic partnership programs started and ended in a relatively narrow 

time frame, a case study approach is utilized, with quantitative as well as qualitative dimensions, 

to shed light on the effectiveness of DMI’s strategic partnerships to enhance consumption of 

fluid milk and manufactured dairy products. For the 2012 evaluation, we have chosen to analyze 

the Domino's Pizza partnership, and we provide analysis of the impact of the business cycle on 

the restaurant channel. 

Pizza accounts for 25 percent of all cheese consumption in the United States (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, 2011). Given the importance of pizza as a vehicle for cheese consumption, it is 

reasonable to feature this product line in a promotion effort. Since 2009, DMI has engaged in a 

partnership with Domino’s, whose market share of the quick-serve pizza industry is roughly 10 

percent. DMI spent over $35 million over three years in partnership activities with Domino’s. 

The Domino's relationship accounted for nearly three-quarters of DMI’s overall promotion 

expenditures in the cheese category over the 2009 to 2011 period. 

Timeline of the Domino’s Partnership Activities

Domino’s has partnered with DMI since early 2009 using dairy farmer dollars to develop and to 

promote Domino’s pizza offerings. In February 2009, Domino’s launched the American Legends 

line of pizza. This line featured regional specialties such as the Honolulu Hawaiian, the Cali 

Chicken Bacon Ranch, the Pacific Veggie, the Buffalo Chicken, the Philly Cheese Steak, and the 

Memphis BBQ Chicken, and was advertised as having 40 percent more cheese than Domino’s 

typical pizzas. Cheese also was used on the crust.

Later, Domino’s expanded the line from six to eight different pizzas, adding the Fiery Hawaiian 

and the Wisconsin 6 Cheese. According to Patrick Doyle, President and CEO of Domino’s 

Pizza, “DMI support has allowed us to focus some advertising dollars on areas we would not 

have considered otherwise. The Wisconsin 6 Cheese pizza has twice the cheese of a regular 

pizza, but we had neither developed nor advertised such a product. DMI helped fund the research 

and media to launch this product” (Dickrell, 2011). 

48
Soon after the new Legends line was promoted, Domino’s featured a reduced price Carry-Out 

Special for a large extra cheese pizza with one topping. This price-reducing strategy was not part 

of DMI activities associated with the partnership. In 2010, Domino’s overall same-store sales 

increased noticeably due primarily to the promotion of the new Legends line and the Carry-Out 

Special feature. In 2010 and later, there was a modest difference in the focus on cheese. The 

predominant message reflected the newly reformulated (“New and Inspired”) pizza, where the 

sauce and the crust received promotion attention along with cheese. Coinciding with the launch 

of the newly reformulated pizza, for those ordering a cheese-only pizza, 50 percent more cheese 

was used. The Carry-Out Special offers were changed to feature large two-topping pizzas, which 

did not automatically carry extra cheese. However, Domino’s reported that customer research 

indicated that this change ultimately would sell more pizza and therefore more cheese, in line 

with the objectives of the DMI partnership.

Domino’s Cheese Volume During the DMI Partnership

Volume associated with cheese in the Carry-Out Specials rose by several million additional 

pounds in 2009. During the fourth quarter of 2009, when the Carry-Out Special was on, the 

volume of cheese Domino’s purchased for its pizza grew at a faster rate than the growth rate of 

Domino’s revenue. In the category of pizza cheese, there was a significant increase in the 

volume used by Domino’s. The first Carry-Out Special increased pizza cheese volume markedly, 

and the second Carry-Out Special increased pizza cheese volume by double digits. In 2010, the 

third and fourth Carry-Out Specials increased cheese use even further. Compared even to the 

growth given by the first two Carry-Out Specials, these increases were significant. The trend of 

increases continued in 2011 with the advent of more Carry-Out Specials. The gains in cheese 

volume represented both an increase in total pizzas sold and an increase in the amount of cheese 

on certain pizzas, resulting in notable growth in total cheese used at Domino’s.

In 2010, Domino’s added the Wisconsin 6 Cheese pizza to the American Legends line. This 

recipe contained more cheese than a traditional one-topping pizza. In the five-week promotion 

period following this pizza’s release, coupled with continued momentum from the “New and 

Inspired” re-launch, Domino’s cheese volume was greater than the same period in 2009 by a 

considerable margin, and the uplift persisted several weeks into the launch. In 2011, Domino’s 

released a new line, Stuffed Cheesy Bread, with three varieties. Containing as much cheese as a 

medium pizza, this item featured twice the amount of cheese than the previous cheese bread sold 

by Domino’s. With the introduction of the American Legends line of specialty pizzas in 2009, 

Domino’s also began to feature certain new specialty cheeses in addition to pizza cheese. The 

use of these new cheese varieties was low in volume compared to mozzarella, but may have 

increased consumer awareness of varieties that they might return to or use as complementary to 

their current cheese purchases.

Concluding Remarks

This summary provides the independent evaluation of the effectiveness of the dairy industry 

marketing and promotion programs for 2011. The quantitative analysis covers the period 1995-

2011. With regard to methodology, the structural econometric models that are presented in this 

49
report are statistically valid and largely consistent with prior studies in the literature on 

evaluation of generic commodity promotion. The demand models for cheese and butter and the 

demand models for dairy exports that were developed for this study as well as the assessment of 

DMI’s strategic partnerships with industry are unique contributions to the research base on the 

evaluation of generic dairy promotion programs. Some of the key findings of the economic 

analysis of the dairy product market that are relevant to future demand enhancing promotion 

efforts are as follows: 

• Dairy promotion programs were successful in increasing U.S. consumption of dairy 

products in aggregate, and specifically for fluid milk, cheese, and butter. The 

incremental consumption per dollar spent was 2.6 gallons for fluid milk, 3.5 pounds for 

cheese, and 5.2 pounds for butter. Put another way, due to the dairy promotion programs,

fluid milk consumption was 5.8 percent higher than it otherwise would have been over 

the study period. Similarly, the promotion activities of DMI resulted in 2.8 percent more 

cheese consumption and 1.4 percent more butter consumption than otherwise would have 

occurred over the same period. 

• The gains in revenue at the farm level were far larger than the costs of the checkoff 

program. The BCRs for fluid milk were calculated to be $3.95 for every dollar invested; 

for cheese $4.43 for every dollar invested; and for butter $6.26 for every dollar invested. 

The BCRs were calculated to be 12.81 on a skims solids basis and 14.14 for all dairy 

products on a fat basis.

• Own prices of fluid milk, cheese, butter, and all dairy products were significant drivers of 

consumer demand for the various dairy products.

• Income was a significant driver of the consumption of cheese, butter, and all dairy 

products, but not for fluid milk. Income is positively associated with the consumption of 

fluid milk, cheese, butter, and all dairy products.

• Fluid milk consumption was affected negatively by advertising from other beverage 

manufacturers, namely fruit juice, soy beverages, and bottled water. 

• USDEC dairy export promotion expenditures increased foreign demand for U.S. dairy 

products, both on a fat basis and on a skim solids basis. DMI allocations to export 

enhancement represented almost 70 percent of USDEC exports promotion funding over 

the study period. On a skim solids basis, the export promotion programs carried out by 

the USDEC yielded 3.1 percent more dairy exports, and on a fat basis, 6.1 percent more 

dairy exports.

• The increase in revenue generated from dairy export promotion was far greater than the 

promotion expenditures; importantly, the effectiveness was greater for low fat dairy 

products (on a milk equivalent skim solids basis) than for high fat content dairy products 

(on a milk equivalent fat basis). The BCR to dairy producers measured in terms of BCRs

for exports on a skim solids basis was calculated to 15.90, while the BCR to dairy 

producers for exports on a fat basis was calculated to be 8.12.

50
• The BCR for dairy export promotion exceeded that of domestic dairy product promotion

on a skim solids basis but not on a fat basis. This finding suggests that reallocation of 

expenditures to export promotion programs might not necessarily result in net benefits in 

terms of total industry revenues and dairy producer profits. This finding also suggests 

that there may be some benefit to shifting resources to promoting exports of low fat dairy 

products.

The DMI strategic partnership programs have engaged food retailers in the dairy industry 

checkoff program in a variety of ways. This report provides an overview of the partnership 

activities with supermarket and restaurant retailers and manufacturers since 2002. A case study 

of the partnership with Domino’s from 2009 to 2011 was the basis for the evaluation of the 

effectiveness of the partnerships. Findings of the case study were:

• The promotional activities with Domino’s included new product lines, use of more 

cheese than had been provided on similar items in the Domino's chain before the 

partnership, and the introduction of specialty cheeses into the company’s recipes. In 

short, the assistance of dairy dollars was instrumental in positively affecting the pizza 

category, a category that is very important to the dairy industry. 

• The competitive structure of the quick serve pizza industry led other companies to imitate 

the product lines that used more cheese, generating positive spillover to the entire 

category.

• The partner company also undertook a price discounting strategy along with product 

development, which enhanced the volume of cheese sold because more pizza was sold.

• DMI’s expenditures on the Domino’s partnership accounted for three-fourths of the 

promotion expenditure on cheese during 2009-2011. The same period is associated with 

a higher BCR for cheese promotion than was the case prior to the partnership. It is not 

possible to conclude that the partnership alone drove the improved effectiveness, but this 

finding is suggestive of success in promotion of the cheese category.

51
National Dairy Promotion and Research Board

Member Listing

Region 1 (Oregon and Washington)

George E. Marsh

Cornelius, Oregon

1st Term Expires 10/31/12

Region 2 (California)

James L. Ahlem Renae A. De Jager

Hilmar, California Chowchilla, California

2nd Term Expires 10/31/13 1st Term Expires 10/31/13

John B. Fiscalini Ronald L. Koetsier

Modesto, California Visalia, California

2nd Term Expires 10/31/13 2nd Term Expires 10/31/11

Stephen D. Maddox Ray S. Prock

Riverdale, California Denair, California

2nd Term Expires 10/31/13 1st Term Expires 10/31/12

Brad J. Scott Arlene J. Vander Eyk

Moreno Valley, California Pixley, California

2nd Term Expires 10/31/13 1st Term Expires 10/31/12

Region 3 (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming)

Brian W. Esplin Jeffrey A. Hardy

Shelley, Idaho Brigham City, Utah

1st Term Expires 10/31/12 1st Term Expires 10/31/13

Ronald E. Shelton Harold A. Wick

Greeley, Colorado Austin, Colorado

1st Term Expires 10/31/11 1st Term Expires 10/31/11

Region 4 (Arkansas, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas)

William R. Anglin Steven R. Hanson

Bentonville, Arkansas Clovis, New Mexico

2nd Term Expires 10/31/11 1st Term Expires 10/31/13

Neil A. Hoff Byron A. Lehman

Windthorst, Texas Newton, Kansas

1st Term Expires 10/31/12 1st Term Expires 10/31/11
Region 5 (Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota)

Paul A. Fritsche Kenton W. Holle

New Ulm, Minnesota Mandan, North Dakota

1st Term Expires 10/31/12 1st Term Expires 10/31/11

Region 6 (Wisconsin)

Patricia M. Boettcher Douglas T. Danielson 

Bloomer, Wisconsin Cadott, Wisconsin

1st Term Expires 10/31/12 1st Term Expires 10/31/13

Sharon K. Laubscher Randy G. Roecker

Wonewoc, Wisconsin Loganville, Wisconsin

1st Term Expires 10/31/11 2nd Term Expires 10/31/12

Carl F. Van Den Avond

Green Bay, Wisconsin

2nd Term Expires 10/31/11

Region 7 (Illionis, Iowa, Missouri, and Nebraska)

Mark E. Erdman Douglas D. Nuttleman

Chenoa, Illinois Stromsburg, Nebraska

1st Term Expires 10/31/12 2nd Term Expires 10/31/11

Region 8 (Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee)

Larry B. Jaggers

Glendale, Kentucky

1st Term Expires 10/31/11

Region 9 (Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and West Virginia)

Douglas L. Krickenbarger Carl A. Schmitz 

West Alexandria, Ohio Wadesville, Indiana

1st Term Expires 10/31/13 2nd Term Expires 10/31/11

Susan D. K. Troyer

Goshen, Indiana

1st Term Expires 10/31/12

Region 10 (Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia)

Zachary H. Myers

Jonesville, North Carolina

1st Term Expires 10/31/13
Region 11 (Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania)

David P. Crowl Rita P. Kennedy

Forest Hill, Maryland Butler, Pennsylvania 

1st Term Expires 10/31/13 2nd Term Expires 10/31/12

Region 12 (New York)

Ronald R. McCormick Sanford Stauffer

Java Center, New York Nicholville, New York

1st Term Expires 10/31/12 1st Term Expires 10/31/13

Region 13 (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and 

Vermont)

Ellen H. Paradee

Grand Isle, Vermont

1st Term Expires 10/31/11
Appendix A-2

National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board

Member Listing

Region 1 (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and 

Vermont)

Tunde E. Balazs

Upstate Niagara Cooperative, Inc.

Buffalo, NY 

Term Expires 06/30/2013

Region 2 (New Jersey and New York)

James F. Walsh

H.P. Hood, L.L.C.

Lynnefield, Massachusetts

Term Expires 06/30/2011

Region 3 (Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia)

Jay S. Bryant

Maryland and Virginia Milk Producer’s Cooperative Association, Inc.

Reston, Virginia

Term Expires 06/30/2012

Region 4 (Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina)

Charles L. Gaither, Jr.

Milkco, Inc.

Asheville, North Carolina

Term Expires 06/30/2013

Region 5 (Florida)

Michael R. Smith

Publix Super Markets, Inc.

Lakeland, Florida

Term Expires 06/30/2011

Region 6 (Ohio and West Virginia)

Charles S. Mayfield, Jr.

Mayfield Dairy (a subsidiary of Dean Foods Company)

Athens, Tennessee

Term Expires 06/30/2012

4
Appendix A-2, continued

Region 7 (Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin)

James B. Green

Kemps, L.L.C. (a subsidiary of H.P. Hood, L.L.C.)

St. Paul, Minnesota

Term Expires 06/30/2010

Region 8 (Illinois and Indiana)

Brian Haugh 

National Dairy Holdings (a subsidiary of Grupo Lala)

Dallas, Texas

Term Expires 06/30/2011

Region 9 (Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee)

Edward L. Mullins

Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc.

Carlinville, Illinois

Term Expires 06/30/2012

Region 10 (Texas)

Nick Mysoré

Dean Foods

Dallas, Texas

Term Expires 06/30/2013

Region 11 (Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and Oklahoma)

Steven M. Turner

Turner Dairy L.L.C. (a subsidiary of Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc.)

Covington, Tennessee

Term Expires 06/30/2011

Region 12 (Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah)

John R. Zuroweste

Dean Foods Company

Dallas, Texas

Term Expires 06/30/2012

Region 13 (Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming)

Henry Michon

Safeway, Inc.

Pleasanton, California

Term Expires 06/30/2013

5
Appendix A-2, continued

Region 14 (Northern California)

Jay B. Simon

Super Store Industries

Stockton, California

Term Expires 06/30/2011

Region 15 (Southern California)

Timothy Kelbel

The Kroger Company, Western Division

Cincinnati, Ohio

Term Expires 06/30/2012

Members-At-Large (Processors)

Miriam E. Brown

Anderson Erikson Dairy

Des Moines, Iowa

Term Expires 06/30/2012

Michael A. Krueger

Shamrock Foods Company

Phoenix, Arizona

Term Expires 06/30/2011

Brian P. Linney

Dairygold, Inc. 

Seattle, Washington

Term Expires 06/30/2013

Teresa E. Webb

Farmland Dairies, L.L.C.

Wallington, New Jersey

Term Expires 06/30/2013

Members-At-Large (Public)

Mary A. Hill

Jackson, Mississippi

Term Expires 06/30/2012

6
Appendix B–1

National Dairy Promotion and Research Board

2011 and 2010 Actual Income and Expenses

(Thousands)

_ 2011 __2010

Income

Domestic Assessment $97,660 $95,701

Import Assessment1 761 0

Interest 5 23

NAEMS2 Interest ____ 0 221

Total Income $98,426 $95,945

General Expenditures

General and Administrative $4,210 $3,796

USDA Oversight ___ 858 927 

Total General Expenditures $5,068 $4,723

Program Expenditures

Domestic Marketing and Export Enhancement $90,299 $95,941

Excess of Revenue (Under) Over Expenditures $3,059 ($4,719)

Fund Balance, Beginning of Year $17,620 $22,339

Fund Balance, End of Year $20,679 $17,620

1

USDA announced the Dairy Import Assessment effective August 1, 2011. 

2

National Air Emissions Monitoring Study.

Source: Independent Auditor’s Report of the National Dairy Board and USDA records. 

1
Appendix B–2

2011 USDA Oversight Costs for the

National Dairy Promotion and Research Board

(Thousands)

Salaries and Benefits $598

Travel 57

Miscellaneous 1 62

Equipment 7

Total $724

Independent Evaluation $59

Total 2 $783

1

Includes overhead, transportation, rent, communications, utilities, postage, contracts, supplies, photocopying, and 

 Office of General Counsel costs.

2

The totals for USDA expenses differ slightly from those shown in Appendix B–1 because of end-of-year estimates

 which are adjusted in the following year and correspond to the Federal fiscal year, which runs from

October 1st through September 30th.

Source: USDA Accounting Reports. 

 

2
Appendix B–3

National Dairy Promotion and Research Board

2012 Approved Budget

(Thousands)

 

Revenues

Domestic Assessments $98,024

Import Assessments 2,100

Interest 5 

Total Income $100,129

Expenses

General and Administrative $4,705

USDA Oversight 945

Subtotal $5,650

Program Budget

Export 18,584

Fuel Up to Play 60 11,057

Industry Communications 700

Industry Image and Relations 3,344

Nutrition Affairs 5,950

Strategic Initiatives 33,357

Strategy and Insights 4,726

Supplemental Regional Programs 7,000

Other 1 6,521

Subtotal $91,239

Dairy Research Institute $20,647

Total Budget Expenditures $111,886

1

Other includes fixed commitments, butter promotion, value–added milk, and value–added cheese.

*UDIA Expense share of total is $30,942.

Source: Budgets received and approved by USDA from the National Dairy Board.

3
Appendix B–4

National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board

2011 and 2010 Actual Income and Expenses

(Thousands)

_ 2011 __2010

Income

Assessment $104,585 $106,974

Late-Payment Charges 95 80

Interest 68 144

Other __ _ _ 7 8

Total Income $104,755 $107,206

General Expenditures

California Refund $9,804 $10,001

Administrative 2,506 2,520

USDA Oversight 426 471

USDA Assessment Verification __ _ 77 87 

Total General Expenditures $12,813 $13,079

Program Expenditures

Moms Target $49,596 $57,641

Teens Target 20,005 24,365

Hispanic Target 6,939 6,948

Market Research 4,557 4,308

Business Development 10,285 5,009

Program Measurement 22 45 

Total Program Expenditures $91,405 $98,316

Excess of Revenue (Under) Over Expenditures $537 ($4,188)

Fund Balance, Beginning of Year $15,168 $19,356

Fund Balance, End of Year $15,705 $15,168

Source: Independent Auditor’s Report of the Fluid Milk Board and USDA Records.

4
Appendix B–5

USDA 2011 Oversight Costs for the

National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board

(Thousands)

Salaries and Benefits $314

Travel 19

Miscellaneous 1 49

Equipment 1

Total $383

Independent Evaluation $31

Total 2 $414

1 Includes overhead, transportation, rent, communications, utilities, postage, contracts, supplies, photocopying, and 

 Office of General Counsel costs. 2 The totals for USDA expenses differ slightly from those shown in Appendix B–4 because of end-of-year estimates

 which are adjusted in the following year.

Source: USDA Accounting Reports.

5
Appendix B–6

National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board

2012 Approved Budget

(Thousands)

Revenues

Assessments $105,000

Interest 100

Total Income $105,100

Carryover from Previous Fiscal Year $550

Total Available Funds $105,650

Expenses

General and Administrative 1 $2,500

USDA Oversight 600

California Refund 9,925

Subtotal $13,025

Program Budget

Moms Target $50,400

Hispanic Target 7,500

Teens Target 17,000

Business Development 10,270

Research 4,500

Program Measurement 2 105

Subtotal $89,775

Unallocated $2,850

Total Budget Expenditures $92,625

1

Processor Compliance is included in General and Administrative Expenses.

2

Independent Evaluation costs are included in Program Measurement Expenses.

Source: Budgets from the National Fluid Milk Board received and approved by USDA. 

6
Appendix B–7

2011 Aggregate Income and Expenditure Data 

Reported to USDA by the Qualified Programs

(Thousands)

 

Income

Carryover from Previous Year $67,831 1

Producer Remittances 184,535 

Transfers from Other Qualified Programs 2 35,919

Transfers to Other Qualified Programs (54,887)

Other Income 3 6,501

Total Adjusted Annual Income $239,899

Expenditures

General and Administrative $7,074

Advertising and Sales Promotion 66,188

Unified Marketing Plan4 58,813

Dairy Foods and Nutrition Research 5,069

Public and Industry Communications 12,593

Nutrition Education 12,605

Market and Economic Research 1,453

Other 5 2,665

Total Annual Expenditures $166,460

Total Available for Future Year Programs $73,439

1 Differences are due to audit adjustments and varying accounting periods.

2 Payments transferred between Qualified Programs differ due to different accounting methods and accounting 

 periods. 3 Includes interest, income from processors and handlers, sales of supplies and materials, contributions, and rental

 income. 4 Unified Marketing Plan: Reported local spending by United Dairy Industry Association units participating in the

 Dairy Management Inc. unified marketing plan to fund national implementation programs. 5 Includes capital expenses.

Source: Data reported by the Qualified Programs. 

7
Appendix B–8

Aggregate 2011 Advertising Expenditure Data Reported 

to USDA by the Qualified Programs

(Thousands)

 

Advertising Programs

Fluid Milk $19,075

Cheese 32,406

Butter 4,540

Frozen Dairy Products 5,133

Other 1 5,034

Total $66,188

1 Includes “Real Seal,” holiday, multi-product, calcium, foodservice, product donation at State

 fairs, and other events and contributions for displays or promotional events.

Source: Data reported by the Qualified Programs. 

8


















































1

Appendix D–1

National Dairy Promotion and Research Board 

& Dairy Management Inc. 

Contracts Reviewed by USDA

ADVERTISING AND MARKETING SERVICES

Balvor, LLC Retail Advisory Services 

Ceft and Company, LLC GENYOUth Web Services 

Deutsch Inc. Consumer Advertising and Marketing 

DNDC Applications, Research and 

Training, LLC Farm Smart Application Development

Florida Dairy Farmers Inc. Unified Marketing Plan Support; Caribbean Dairy 

Promotion and Communication 

Domino’s Pizza Inc. Cheese Promotion Support 

H.P. Hood, LLC Consumer Awareness and Lactose Free Dairy 

Product Support 

Long Odyssey Fuel Up To Play 60 Promotion Support

MarkeTek Marketing Consultants Sustainability Marketing Services 

Media Management Services, Inc. Fuel Up To Play 60 Promotion Support 

Natural Marketing Institute Database Management 

New England Dairy Promotion Board Unified Marketing Plan Support 

National Football League Players 

Incorporated Fuel Up To Play 60 Promotion Support

Pizza Hut, Inc. Cheese Promotion Support 

RTC Inc. Meal Solutions Project 

Southeast United Dairy Industry 

Association, Inc. Unified Marketing Plan Support 

The Washington Post Company Conference sponsorship 

Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board, Inc. National Butter Program 

COMMUNICATIONS, NUTRITION EDUCATION AND PUBLIC RELATIONS

Action for Healthy Kids, Inc. Fuel Up To Play 60 Promotion Support 

ASK-Comm Strategies, LLC Farm Smart Communications Support

Bader Rutter & Associates

Innovation Center Communications; Health and 

Wellness Nutrition Education; Lactose 

Intolerance Communication Efforts 

Baxter Communications Video and Communication Services 

Burson–Marsteller Dairy Framework Communications 

Demeter Communications Cow of the Future Program Activities 

Destination Imagination Program Sponsorship 

Digital Cement Co. Website Maintenance and Transition Support

Digital Influence Lactose Intolerance Media Development 

Direct Image & Design Print and Mail Communications
2

Edelman Public Relations Worldwide

Fuel Up To Play 60 program; Dairy Image

Services; Health and Wellness Communications; 

Strategic Consulting and Coordination 

Fleishman-Hilliard Communication Planning and Service 

FoodMinds, LLC

Cheese & Sodium, Lactose Intolerance, Nutrient 

Rich Foods and Whey Protein Communications; 

Nutrition Program Strategy and Services 

Fresh Approach Commodity Roundtable 

I–Site Web Design Fuel Up To Play 60 program support 

McCarron Group Project Support and Services 

National Dairy Shrine Program Sponsorship 

New Earth Development of Sustainability Assessment Portal

Nutrition Impact, LLC Nutrition and Protein Intake Project Services

PJH Nutritional Sciences Project Services

Randolph Associates, Inc. Producer Relations 

Responsibility Matters Inc. Dairy Sustainability Communications 

Results Direct Dairy Website Support 

Richter Studios Dairy Farming Today Website Support 

Ruby–Do Special Projects Industry Image and Relations 

School Nutrition Association Fuel Up To Play 60 & School Nutrition 

School Nutrition Foundation Fuel Up To Play 60 & School Nutrition 

Team Services, LLC Fuel Up To Play 60 Promotion Support

Weber Shandwick, Inc. Dairy Industry Crisis Readiness Program and 

MyDairy Program 

World Wildlife Fund Strategic Coordination Services 

EXPORT AND INGREDIENTS

2020 Company LLC Document Management Services 

3 A Business Consulting Professional Services

American–Mexican Marketing Mexican Market Representation & Development 

Arab Marketing Finance, Inc. Middle East Market Representation & 

Development

Baccigaluppi, Roger Consulting Services for USDEC

Bain & Company Global Dairy Market Analysis 

Boutin, Robert F. Consulting Services for USDEC

Bovina Mountain Consulting Nutrition Market Report

Canadean Limited Global Dairy Ingredients Database 

Contacts International Consulting, Ltd. South American Market Representation & 

Development

Culinary Institute of America Culinary Research 

DH Business Consulting Professional Services

Domino’s Pizza Enterprises Cheese Export Promotion 

Esser, John P. Consulting services for USDEC

Evans, Allie Consulting services for USDEC
3

Fileti, Cecilia Pozo Consulting services for USDEC

Gerdes, Sharon Ingredients Consulting Services

H. Randolph Inc. Consulting services for USDEC

IntNet Korea Program Activities

Jardine Food Service Ltd Pacific Rim Cheese Program

JDG Consulting Consulting services for USDEC

J.E. Sullivan Enterprises, LLC Consulting services for USDEC

Kentucky Fried Chicken Japan Pacific Rim Cheese Program 

Koski, Shannon Ingredients Consulting Services

International Dairy Foods Association International Dairy Trade Shows 

LevCom Professional Services

Little, Porter Consulting services for USDEC

Locraft, Lauren Consulting services for USDEC

Loud Group European Export Program Services 

Mathhews Project Services Consulting services for USDEC

Market Makers Inc. Japanese Market Representation & Development

Market Tree Sweetener Research

Midwest Dairy Association Unified Marketing Plan Support; Ingredient Trade 

Development 

NIZO US Milk Powder Program Activities

Novak Birch Professional Services 

Orrani Consulting Ltd China, Egypt, Korea and Saudi Arabia Cheese and 

Dairy Ingredient Research 

Pacrim Associates Southeast Asia Program Activities 

Pizza Hut Hong Kong Pacific Rim Cheese Program

Pizza Hut Indonesia Pacific Rim Cheese Program

Pizza Hut Korea Pacific Rim Cheese Program

Pizza Hut Philippines Pacific Rim Cheese Program

Pizza Hut T Pacific Rim Cheese Program

Pizza Hut Singapore Pacific Rim Cheese Program

PR Consultants Chinese Program Activities

Promar Consulting Market Research for Cheese in China 

R. Alexander Associates, Inc. Anearobic Digester Fiber Value Research

Results Direct Website Support and Services

Schonrock Consulting Consulting Services

Shainwright Consulting Oceana Market Research Services 

Stanton Ems & Sia Foodservice & Bakery Markets for Cheese in Asia

Stiefer Global Marketing Group Global Consulting Services 

Story Consulting Consulting Services

United States Army Research Institute 

of Environmental Medicine

Milk and Soy Based Diet Effects on 

Musculoskeletal Health and Glucose Homeostasis

Weppler, Audrey Consulting services for USDEC 

Yano Research Japanese Market Research

Yum! Consulting Chinese Cheese Export Program Development
4

MARKET AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH, CONSULTING SERVICES 

Antler Consulting Accounting Services

Anex, Robert Fluid Milk Life Cycle Assessment Research

Anstey, Chris Sustainability Research

CFE Solutions, Inc. Dairy Consumption Consulting Services

Concept Green Sustainability Progress Report

Culinary Sales Support Dairy Menu Product Development

EAS Consulting Group, LLC Regulatory Consulting Services

Fox Hollow Consulting, LLC Enteric Methane Mitigation Research

GFK Custom Research Future of Dairy Research 

Health Focus International Evaluation of Consumer Health and Wellness 

Heller, Martin Dairy Life Cycle Assessment Consulting

Hellwig, Staphanie Fluid Milk Life Cycle Assessment Research

Humbert, Sebastian Packaging Life Cycle Assessment Research

Larson Allen LLP Accounting Services

Life Cycle Services, LLC Thomas Gloria’s Dairy Packaging Life Cycle 

Assessment Research

Leah Goldman Retail Concepts Research

McBean, Lois Dairy Council Digest Review Services

Manomet Sustainability Framework and Environmental 

Metrics 

Marketecture Consumer Confidence Tracking 

Marketing Concepts Research Coordination 

McLeod, Watkinson & Miller Legal Services

National Milk Producers Federation Animal Health and Wellbeing Services 

NPD Group Consumer Food Consumption Trends 

OMP Consulting Inc. Regulatory Affairs Consulting

Quantis Carbon Footprint Calculator Development

Resources First Foundation Dairy Fleet Smart Program Support

Results Direct Website Support Services

The Revere Group Information Technology Support

Schenck, Rita Packaging Life Cycle Assessment Research

Science Applications International 

Corporation Anearobic Digester Project Support

Strategic Conservation Consulting Services

Strategy One Dairy Consumers Research Services

TNS Custom Research, A Kantar Group 

Company Dairy Beverage Usage Development 

Watson Mulhern LLC Strategic Communications Support

William Blackburn Consulting, Ltd Sustainability Governance Consulting Services

Appendix D–2
5

National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board 

Contracts Reviewed by USDA

ADVERTISING, PROMOTION, AND PUBLIC RELATIONS

Brain Juicer Group PLC Refuel Promotion Program Services 

Brodeur Partners Issues Management Communications 

Deutsch Inc.

Public Relations; Strategic Communications; 

Database Management; English and Spanish

Advertising and Marketing Media 

Inland Label and Marketing Services Storage, Labels and Promotional Giveaways

Ipsos-ASI, LLC Moms TV; Quantitative Marketing Testing 

International Dairy Foods Association Professional Consulting and Communication

Services 

National Football League Players 

Incorporated Promotional Services 

RealMediaValue Company Database; Media Evaluation Services

Spectrum Group Productions Communication Services 

Team Services, LLC Promotional Services 

Weber Shandwick, Inc. Refuel Promotion Services 

MARKET RESEARCH AND EVALUATION, AND CONSULTING SERVICES

Applied Thinking, LLC Marketing Mix Consulting 

Artemis Strategy Group Refuel Promotion Program Services; Breakfast 

Research; Market Research 

Beverage Marketing Corporation Competitive Strategy Consulting

Food For Thought Consulting Scientific and Regulatory Research

Fresh Approach Communications and Roundtable 

Guia Brand Planning Hispanic Teen Market Research

Kaley Warner Klemp Consulting Services

Interviewing Service of America, Inc. Dairy Latte Beverage Research 

Light Industries Database Support

Monitor Company Strategic Planning and Breakfast Strategy

Outloud, LLC Flavored Milk Marketing and Research

Phoenix Marketing Group Hispanic Qualitative Market Research

Prime Consulting Group Inc.

Flavored Milk Program Services; Segmentation 

and Communication Channel Tracking; Surveys; 

and Consulting Services

Radius Global Market Research

Refuel Promotion Program Services; Serving Size 

Breakfast Beverage Segmentation Research;

Consumer Attitudes, Consumption and 

Advertising Tracking; Fluid Milk Market Research 

School Nutrition Association Nutrition Communications 
6

Tipton Group Food Related Checkoff Program Research

Victor Zaborsky Consulting Services

OTHER AGREEMENTS 

Abrams, Dr. Steven Medical Advisory Board Member Services

Barr, Dr. Susan Medical Advisory Board Member Services

Bridgewater Wealth and Financial 

Management Services Management Services

Dairy Management Inc. Foot and Mouth Disease Training Exercises

Economos, Dr. Christina Medical Advisory Board Member Services

Godfrey, Vivian Employment

Heaney, Dr. Robert Medical Advisory Board Member Services

Hill, Dr. James Medical Advisory Board Member Services

Johnson, Dr. Rachael Medical Advisory Board Member Services

McLeod, Watkinson & Miller Legal Services

Rubin, Ronald J. Employment 

Saunders, Dr. Michael Medical Advisory Board Member Services

Snyder, Cohn, Collyer, Hamilton & 

Associates, P.C. Accounting Services
Appendix E-1

Dairy Foods Research Centers

CALIFORNIA DAIRY RESEARCH CENTER

The California Dairy Foods Research Center is a comprehensive effort to bring the full 

capabilities of the Dairy Products Technology Center at California Polytechnic State University 

at San Luis Obispo and Dairy Research and Information Center at the University of CaliforniaDavis, to support the dairy industry from farm to table. Working with the California Dairy 

Research Foundation, the California Dairy Foods Research Center conducts applied and strategic 

dairy research and development in the areas of product technology and utilization, ingredient 

technology and utilization, products for health enhancement, food quality and food safety.

Additional information link: California Dairy Research Center.

California Dairy 

Research Foundation

Gonca Pasin, Ph.D., 

Executive Director

501 G Street, Ste. 203

Davis, CA 95616

California Polytechnic State 

University–San Luis Obispo 

Phillip S. Tong, Ph.D., 

Director of Dairy Products 

Technology Center

San Luis Obispo, CA 93407

University of California-Davis 

John C. Bruhn, Ph.D.,

Director, Dairy Research & 

Information Center

One Shields Avenue

Davis, CA 95616-8598

MIDWEST DAIRY FOODS RESEARCH CENTER

The Midwest Dairy Foods Research Center conducts research to support the dairy industry 

utilizing resources within the University of Minnesota (St. Paul), South Dakota State University 

(Brookings) and Iowa State University (Ames). Research focuses on improving and controlling 

flavor development and functionality in cheese; improving the performance of cheese starter 

cultures through genetics; adding value to milk-based products with probiotics and 

nutraceuticals; improving shelf life of flavored milks; reducing undesirable taste attributes of 

milk; improving functionality and controlling flavor attributes of milk fractionation components; 

and developing methods for effective and profitable uses of whey. 

Additional information link: Midwest Dairy Foods Research Center.

Iowa State University-Ames

Department of Animal Science

1221 Kildee Hall 

Ames, Iowa 50011-3150

South Dakota State University

Lloyd Metzger, Ph.D.,

Director of Dairy Center, 

Box: 2104

Brookings, SD 57007

University of Minnesota–St. 

Paul

Peggy Lehtola,

Assistant Director of Midwest 

Dairy Foods Research Center

1334 Eckles Avenue

St. Paul, MN 55108

NORTHEAST DAIRY FOODS RESEARCH CENTER

The Northeast Dairy Foods Research Center located at Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., was

formed to conduct fluid milk and dairy ingredient research, dairy microbiology and safety, 

provide applications and technical support for the improvements in milk powder quality, casein 

and whey protein research, and help establish the next generation of dairy ingredients.

Additional information link: Northeast Dairy Foods Research Center.
Cornell University

Department of Food Science

Kathryn J. Boor, Ph.D.,

Dean of Agriculture and Life Sciences

David M. Barbano, Ph.D.,

Director Northeast Dairy Center

118 Stocking Hall

Ithaca, NY 14853-7201

University of Vermont 

Dairy Center of Excellence

102 Terrill, 570 Main Street

Burlington, VT. 05404

SOUTHEAST DAIRY FOODS RESEARCH CENTER

The Southeast Dairy Foods Research Center, with facilities and support at North Carolina State

University (Raleigh) and Mississippi State University (Starkville), has been operating since 1988

and actively participates in national research planning and execution on behalf of the dairy

industry. The center also hosts a Food Rheology Laboratory, Nutrition Technical Services

Laboratory and a Sensory Applications Laboratory, conducting analytical, qualitative and 

affective sensory tests and flavor chemistry analyses tailored to meet specific needs of the food 

industry.

Additional information link: Southeast Dairy Foods Research Center.

Mississippi State University

Department of Animal & Dairy Sciences

240 Wise Center Drive

Starkville, Mississippi, 39762

North Carolina State University 

Todd Klaenhammer, Ph.D., 

Dairy Center Director,

100 Schaub Hall, Box 7624

Raleigh, NC 27695-7624

WESTERN DAIRY CENTER 

The Western Dairy Center’s primary location is Utah State University in Logan, with additional

resources available at Oregon State University, Washington State University, and the University 

of Idaho. The faculty has extensive expertise in dairy processing/production, microbiology, 

chemistry and sensory analysis. Research focus includes cheese flavor and functionality; cheese 

technology; fermented products, including cheese and yogurt; ultra-high-temperature and 

extended-shelf-life fluid milk beverages; milk protein chemistry, including coagulation, 

denaturation and separation; milk fractionation and use of membrane separation in dairy foods; 

anaerobic digestion of dairy processing waste; whey protein extrusion; application of genetics, 

genomics and metabolomics to lactic acid bacteria; whey and milk utilization; and microstructure 

of dairy.

Additional information link: Western Dairy Council.

Utah State University

Center for Dairy Research 

Donald J. McMahon, Ph.D.,

Director of Western Dairy Center

8700 Old Main Hill, 750 N 1200 E

Logan, Utah 84322-8700
WISCONSIN CENTER FOR DAIRY RESEARCH

The Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research is located within a licensed, operating dairy plant on 

the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus. Building on Wisconsin’s tradition as the “Dairy 

State,” the center explores functional, flavor and physical properties of cheese/cheese products 

and other milk components used as ingredients and as finished products. The center researches 

cheese making and dairy protein processing/separation procedures, use of dairy ingredients in 

foods, and technologies for product safety and quality. 

Additional information link: Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research.

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research

John Lucey, Ph.D., 

Director of Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research, 

1605 Linden Drive

Madison, Wisconsin 53706-1565
Appendix E-2

Dairy Foods Competitive Research Projects Active in 2011

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, INSTITUTION AND PROJECT TITLE

Sanjeev Anand, Ph.D. (South Dakota State University): Inactivation of Spores in Nonfat Milk 

and Nonfat Milk Concentrates [continued in 2011]; Modifications of CIP Protocol to prevent and 

control Biofilms in Dairy Processing Environment [continued in 2011].

Sanjeev Anand, Ph.D. & Lloyd Metzger, Ph.D. (South Dakota State University): Role of 

Thermoduric and Thermophilic Sporeformers and the Biofilms in Cheese Spoilage [continued in 

2011].

Christopher R. Daubert, Ph.D. (North Carolina State University): Rheological and 

Tribological Evaluation of Creaminess in Model Dairy Systems[continued in 2011].

Francisco Diez-Gonzalez, Ph.D. (University of Minnesota): Improving the Safety of Queso 

Fresco Using GRAS Ingredients [completed in 2011]. 

Brigitte Dragsted (University of Copenhagan): Additional Analyses for the Copenhagen Cheese 

Study [continued in 2011].

MaryAnne Drake, Ph.D. (North Carolina State University): Application of Milk Proteins for 

Greek Style Yogurts With Comparable or Superior Sensory and Nutritional Properties to 

Traditional Strained Greek Yogurts [continued in 2011]; Enhancing the Quality and Utilization 

of Native Whey Proteins [completed in 2011]; Hydrolysis of Milk Powder Permeate and/or Milk 

for no Sugar Added Flavored Milk; Source of Salty Taste in Permeate [continued in 2011]; 

Identification of Chemical Components Responsible for Specific Flavors in WPC 80 and WPI

[completed in 2011].

MaryAnne Drake, Ph.D. & Donald McMahon, Ph.D. (North Carolina State University & 

Utah State University): At What Salt Level Do Consumers Notice Decreasing Salt 

Concentrations and at What Concentration Is Acceptance Negatively Impacted? [continued in 

2011].

Mark R. Etzel, Ph.D. (University of Wisconsin-Madison): Charged Ultrafiltration Membranes 

for Fractionation of Milk Proteins [continued in 2011]; Electrostatic Repulsion Enhancement for 

Heat Stable, Clear Whey Protein Beverages [continued in 2011]; and Creation of Whey Protein 

Enhanced Beverages that are Clear and Heat Stable at Acidic pH [continued in 2011].

Michael Fenech, Ph.D. (CSIRO Food and Nutritional Sciences – Australia): Bovine Milk’s 

Potential as a Functional Food for DNA Damage Control [continued in 2011].
Appendix E-2, continued

Arny Ferrando, Ph.D. (University of Arkansas): Effect of Dietary Protein Intake Pattern on 

Skeletal Muscle in Older Individuals [continued in 2011].

Roger Fielding, Ph.D. (Tufts University): Efficacy of Whey Protein Supplementation on 

Resistance Exercise Induced Changes in Muscle Strength, Fat Free Mass, and Function in 

Mobility-Limited Older Adults [completed in 2011].

Allen E. Foegeding, Ph.D. (North Carolina State University): A Broad Survey of Chelating 

Agents with a view to Maximizing the Calcium Content in Whey Protein Beverages [completed

in 2011]; Developing Whey Proteins Having Less Astringency at Low pH [continued in 2011]; 

and Modifying Whey Proteins to improve Thermal Stability and Clarity at Neutral pH 

[completed in 2011].

Allen E. Foegeding, Ph.D. & Bongkosh Vardhanabhuti, Ph.D. (North Carolina State 

University & University of Missouri): Functional Whey Protein Ingredients Based on Designed 

Aggregates [continued in 2011].

Kathy Glass, Ph.D. (University of Wisconsin-Madison): Enhancing the Microbiological Safety 

and Quality of Reduced Sodium Cheese with Natural Preservatives or Adjunct Cultures

[continued in 2011]; Inhibition of Clostridium Botulinum in Reduced-Sodium Pasteurized 

Cheese Products [continued in 2011].

Selvarani Govindasamy-Lucey, Ph.D. (Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research): Low Sodium 

Cheddar Cheese by Controlling Microbial Activity and Enhancing Flavor [continued in 2011]; 

and Development/Validation of Alternative Methods for Rapid Sodium Testing in Cheese

[continued in 2011].

Richard W. Hartel, Ph.D. (University of Wisconsin): Effect of Protein Source and Level on 

Partial Coalescence and Its Impact on Other Textural and Sensory Attributes of Ice Cream

[completed in 2011]; Pro-cream and DLP Blends as an Ingredient for Various Food Product 

Applications [completed in 2011].

Federico Harte, Ph.D. (University of Tennessee): Manufacturing of Low Spores, Low-heat 

Milk Powders for Various Food and Beverage Applications [continued in 2011]; Product 

Development by the Modification of Casein Micelles Size and Stability [began in 2011].

Federico Harte, Ph.D. & Juan Luis Jurat-Fuentes, Ph.D. (University of Tennessee): Nanostructure and Hydrophobic Binding Properties of the Casein Micelle [began in 2011].

Mathew Hayes Ph.D. (University of Pennsylvania): Effects of Dairy Macronutrients on 

Glucogo-like-Peptide-1 Receptor Mediated Suppression of Food Intake and Blood Glucose 

Regulation [continued in 2011].
Appendix E-2, continued

James O. Hill, M.D. (University of Colorado): The Role of FUTP60 in Accelerating and 

Sustaining Uptake of Healthy Behaviors and Increasing Utilization of School Wellness 

Resources [continued in 2011].

Mark Johnson, Ph.D. (Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research): Development and Removal of 

Biofilms in a Pasteurizer [continued in 2011].

Todd Klaenhammer, Ph.D. (North Carolina State University): Influence of Lactic Acid 

Bacteria, Milk, Yogurt and Milk Components on Gene Expression in Human Intestinal Epithelia 

Cells [completed in 2011].

Carmen Moraru, Ph.D. (Cornell University): Development of Pulsed Light Based Combination 

Surface Treatments as a Nonthermal Strategy for Microbial Inactivation on Cheese Surface

[continued in 2011].

Donald McMahon, Ph.D. & Allen E. Foegeding, Ph.D. (Utah State University & North 

Carolina State University): Designing Filler Particles to Imitate Fat in Cheddar Cheese; 

Investigating the Filled Gel Model for the Role of Fat in Cheese [continued in 2011].

Donald McMahon, Ph.D. , Jeff Broadbent, Ph.D., Balasubramanian Ganesan, Ph.D., 

MaryAnne Drake, Ph.D., James L. Steele, Ph.D., Nana Y. Farkye, Ph.D. (Utah State 

University, North Carolina State University, University of Wisconsin-Madison, California 

Polytechnic State University): A Systematic Study of Cheese Microbiology and Flavor Based on 

Salt Cation Substitution in Lower Sodium Cheddar Cheese [continued in 2011].

Lloyd Metzger, Ph.D. & Donald McMahon, Ph.D. (South Dakota State University &Utah 

State University): Concentration, Storage Stability and Functionality of Highly Concentrated 

Micellar Casein [continued in 2011]. 

Charles Onwulata, Ph.D. (USDA Agricultural Research Service): Long-term Shelf Life Studies 

of Whey Protein Concentrates (WPC 34 and WPC 80) Under Adverse Storage Conditions

[began in 2011].

Daniel J. O’Sullivan, Ph.D. (University of Minnesota): Over-Expression of Stress Genes to 

Improve Stability of Bifidobacteria in Yogurt [completed in 2011].

Devin Peterson, Ph.D. (University of Minnesota): Inhibition of Off-Flavor Development in 

Non-Refrigerated Milk by Phenolic Chemistry [completed in 2011]. Identification of Taste 

Compounds in Cheddar Cheese: Strategies for Flavor Improvement [continued in 2011].

Helen Raybould, Ph.D. (University of California-Davis): Effects of Milk Components on 

Gastrointestinal Signaling Pathways [completed in 2011]; and Host Effects Derived from 

Milk-Dependent Production of Soluble Signals from Bifidobacteria [completed in 2011].
Appendix E-2, continued

Robert F. Roberts, Ph.D. (Pennsylvania State University): Influence of Delivery System on the 

Efficacy of a Probiotic Intervention [began in 2011].

Karen Smith, Ph.D. (University of Wisconsin): Benchmarking Study to Evaluate Quality and 

Performance Gaps in U.S. and International NDM/SMP [continued in 2011].

Gloria Solano-Aguilar, Ph.D. & Todd R. Klaenhammer, Ph.D. (USDA Agricultural Research 

Service & North Carolina State University): Effect of Dairy Delivery on Survival and Activity of 

Probiotic Cultures in vivo [completed in 2011].

James L. Steele, Ph.D. (University of Wisconsin): Evaluation of Compositional Factors of LowFat and Low-Sodium Cheddar Cheeses on the Growth of Potential Pathogens in a Model System 

[completed in 2011].

Hirofumi Tanaka, Ph.D. (University of Texas): Hypotensive Effects of Conventional Dairy 

Products: Role of Arterial Stiffness [began in 2011].

Peggy M. Tomasula, Ph.D. (USDA Agricultural Research Service): Development and 

Validation of the Effect of Interventions and Processes on Persistence of Listeria monocytogenes 

on Queso Fresco Cheese [completed in 2011].

Phillip S. Tong, Ph.D. (California Polytechnic State University): Milk Protein Concentrate 

Functionality Improvement Program [continued in 2011].

Bongkosh Vardhanabhuti, Ph.D. (University of Missouri): Improved Cold Gelation Properties 

of Whey Proteins by Heated Whey Protein and Polysaccharide Soluble Complexes [began in 

2011].

Martin Wiedmann, Ph.D., DR. Med. Vet. (Cornell University): Consumer Sensory Perception 

of Pasteurized Fluid Milk over Shelf-life [continued in 2011]; Survey of Mesophilic and 

Thermophilic Sporeformers in Dairy Powders and Raw Milk Across the U.S. [continued in 

2011].

Michael B. Zemel, Ph.D. (University of Tennessee): Effects of Dairy Components on

Monocyte-Endothelial Cell Vascular Infiltration and Inflammation [continued in 2011]; Effects 

of Dairy Consumption on SIRT1 and Metabolic Risk in Humans [continued in 2011]; 

Modulation of Human Airway Smooth Muscle Function [continued in 2011].

Qixin Zhong, Ph.D. (University of Tennessee): Creating Novel Structures to Stabilize Whey 

Proteins during Heating Nearby Isoelectric Points [continued in 2011].
Appendix E-3

Nutrition Competitive Research Activities

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, INSTITUTION AND PROJECT TITLE

Arne Astrup, M.D., Ph.D. (University of Copenhagen): Health effects of a high cheese intake –

Does maturation and fat content matter? [continued in 2011].

Daniela Barile, Ph.D. (University of California-Davis): Effectiveness of Bovine Milk 

Oligosaccharides in Modifying Gastrointestinal Function in Healthy Individuals [continued in 

2011].

Richard Bruno, Ph.D. (University of Connecticut): Vasoprotective Activities of Low-fat Milk 

in Individuals with Metabolic Syndrome [began in 2011].

Kimberlee Burrington (Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research): Characterization of Commercial 

Hydrolyzed Whey Protein and Milk Protein Concentrate Ingredients in Nutrition in Nutrition 

Bars and Beverages [continued in 2011].

In-Young Choi, M.D. (University of Kansas): Dairy Intake and Brain Health in Aging [began in 

2011].

Eric Ding, Ph.D. (Harvard University): Dairy Consumption and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes: 

Systematic Review and Dose-response Meta-analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies [completed

in 2011].

Joseph E. Donnelly, Ph.D. & Richard Washburn, Ph.D. (University of Kansas): Effects of 

Resistance Training and Milk Supplementation on Body Composition in Middle School Children 

[completed in 2011].

Adam Drewnowski, Ph.D. (University of Kansas): Meeting U.S. Dietary Guidelines for 

Calcium: The Role of Dairy Foods [began in 2011].

Victor L. Fulgoni III, M.D. (Nutrition Impact LLC): Total Distribution of Protein Intake 

Throughout the Day in American Diets [completed in 2011]; Protein Intake and Lean Body 

Mass in Older Americans [completed in 2011]; Short Chain Saturated Fatty Acids and Blood 

Pressure [completed in 2011]; Milkfat and Carbohydrate Intake Effects on Lipid Levels

[completed in 2011]; Dairy at Breakfast and Breakfast Patterns Analysis [completed in 2011]; 

Dairy and Arthritis [completed in 2011]; Dairy Intake and Cognition [completed in 2011].

Rachel Johnson, Ph.D., MPH, RD. (University of Vermont): Evaluating the Acceptance of 

Reformulated Flavored Milk in Schools [continued in 2011].
Appendix E-3, continued

Ronald M. Krauss, Ph.D. (Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute): Changes in LDL 

and HDL With Increased Intake of Saturated Fat from Dairy Foods in Individuals with 

Atherogenic Dyslipidemia and LDL Subclass Pattern B [completed in 2011]; Effect of a 

Modified Lower Carbohydrate, High Fat DASH Diet Plan on Plasma Lipids, Lipoprotein Particle 

Size and Blood Pressure in Healthy Adults [continued in 2011]; Association of Dairy 

Consumption With Lipoprotein Subfractions and Cardiovascular Disease in the Malmo Diet and 

Cancer Study [completed in 2011].

Karl L. Insogna, M.D. (Yale University): The Impact of a Protein Supplement on Bone Mass in 

Older Men and Women [continued in 2011].

Buddhi Lamsal, Ph.D. (Iowa State University): Milk Protein Concentrates (MPC) Modification 

and Evaluation for Potential Applications [continued in 2011].

John A. Lucey, Ph.D. (University of Wisconsin): High Pressure Processing of Low-Fat Cheese 

[completed in 2011]; Combined Native Whey and Casein Concentrate Production [completed in 

2011]; and Milk Protein Concentrate Functionality Improvement Program [completed in 2011]; 

Development/validation of alternative methods for rapid sodium testing in cheese [continued in 

2011].

Schuichi Machida, Ph.D. (Tokai University, Japan): The Effect of Whey Protein on Sarcopenia 

in the Elderly [completed in 2011].

Kevin Maki, Ph.D. (Biofortis-Provident Clinical Research): A Randomized, Controlled Trial to 

Assess the Effects of Low-fat Dairy Intake on Endothelial Function and Blood Pressure in 

Subjects With Pre-hypertension or Stage-1 Hypertension [continued in 2011].

Lloyd Metzger, Ph.D. (South Dakota State University): Evaluation of NFDM and MPC in 

Yogurt Manufacture [completed in 2011]; Manufacture of Modified MPC Utilizing Injection of 

Carbon Dioxide [continued in 2011]; Manufacture of Reduced-/Low-sodium Slice-on-slice 

Process Cheese [completed in 2011].

Lloyd Metzger, Ph.D., John A. Lucey, Ph.D. & Allen E. Foegeding, Ph.D. (South Dakota 

State University, University of Wisconsin & North Carolina State University): Low-fat/Fat-free 

Process Cheese for Slice-on-slice Application [completed in 2011].

Lynn L. Moore, Ph.D. (Boston University): Diet and Clustering of Metabolic Risk in 

Adolescent Girls [completed in 2011]; Dairy Risk of Hypertension: Framingham Offspring and 

PREMIER Studies [continued in 2011].

Theresa Nicklas, Ph.D. (Baylor University): Healthy Eating and Lifestyle for Total Health 

(HEALTH) [continued in 2011].
Appendix E-3, continued

Stefan M. Pasiakos, Ph.D. (U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine):

Comparative Effects of Milk- and Soy-based Diets on Musculoskeletal Health and Glucose 

Homeostasis during Prolonged Energy Restriction in Rats [began in 2011].

Stuart Phillips, Ph.D. (McMaster University): Molecular Events Underpinning Changes in 

Tissue Metabolism with Whey and Soy Ingestion in Energy Restriction in Overweight/Obese 

Adults [continued in 2011].

Anne Raben, Ph.D. (University of Copenhagen): The Effects of Dairy Intake on Weight Regain and Risk Markers of Diabetes and Cardiovascular Diseases [began in 2011].

Nancy Rodriguez, Ph.D., RD, FACSM (University of Connecticut): Novel Approaches to 

Maintain Muscle Mass with Aging: Benefits of Yoga and Higher-protein Intakes in Middle-aged 

Men and Women [continued in 2011]. 

Karen Schmidt, Ph.D. (Kansas State University): Radio Frequency Dielectric Heating (RFDH): 

A Process Lethality Treatment That Impacts Unique Functionality in Dried Dairy Powders

[continued in 2011].

Tonya Schoenfuss, Ph.D. (University of Minnesota): Production of Low-sodium Cheddar 

Cheese: Improving Flavor Through the Use of Flavor Enhancers, Salt Replacers and Cheesemaking Procedures [completed in 2011].

Gloria Solano-Aguilar, Ph.D. (USDA Agricultural Research Service): Effects of Milk Fat on 

Obesity-Mediated changes in Gastrointestinal Function and Microflora Composition [began in 

2011].

Brian Timmons, Ph.D. (McMaster University): Milk for Lean Mass for Overweight Kids: The 

MILK with Exercise Study [completed in 2011].

Marta Van Loan, Ph.D. (USDA Agricultural Research Service): Milk Versus Calcium Citrate 

and Vitamin D Supplements for Bone Health in Postmenopausal Women [continued in 2011].

Jeff Volek, Ph.D. (University of Connecticut): Investigation of Whey Protein Supplementation 

for Physiological Enhancement to Resistance Training and Dietary Regimes in Young Adults 

[completed in 2011]. Effect of Incremental Increases in Dietary Carbohydrate on Saturated Fat 

Levels in Blood Borne Risk Markers for Cardiovascular Disease [began in 2011]. 

Robert Ward, Ph.D. (Utah State University): Effect of Milkfat Globule Membrane on Gut 

Barrier Protection in Runners [continued in 2011]; Effect of dairy product consumption on 

cognitive performance among elderly participants of the Cache County Study on Memory Health 

and Aging [continued in 2011].
Richard A. Washburn, Ph.D. (University of Kansas): Whey Protein Supplementation with 

Resistance Training: Effect on Body Composition of Young Adults [continued in 2011].

Angela Zivkovic, Ph.D. (University of California-Davis): Effects of Dairy Fat on Postprandial 

Inflammation [continued in 2011].
Appendix E-4

Sustainability Competitive Research Activities

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, INSTITUTION AND PROJECT TITLE

Heber, Albert J., Ph.D. (Purdue University): Assessment of Carbon Footprint Contributions to 

Milk Products by U.S. Dairies [continued in 2011]; Greenhouse Gas Emissions at US Dairies 

[continued in 2011]; Evaluation and Analysis of NAEMS Dairy Barn and Area Source 

Emissions Data [began in 2011].

Olivier Jolliet, Ph.D. (University of Michigan): US Fluid Milk: Beyond Carbon LCA Study 

[began in 2011].

Greg Thoma, Ph.D. (University of Arkansas): Comprehensive Life Cycle Assessment for 

Cheese and Whey Products [completed in 2011]; Comprehensive Life Cycle Assessment for 

Fluid Dairy Delivery Systems [continued in 2011].
Appendix F

Qualified State, Regional or Importer

Dairy Product Promotion, Research, or Nutrition Education Programs

Allied Milk Producers’ Cooperative

495 Blough Road

Hooversville, PA 15936–8207

American Dairy Association Mid East

5950 Sharon Woods Blvd.

Columbus, OH 43229

American Dairy Association and Dairy 

 Council, Inc.

Interstate Place II, 100 Elwood Road

North Syracuse, NY 13212

American Dairy Association of Alabama

5340 West Fayetteville Road

Atlanta, GA 30349–5416

American Dairy Association of Georgia

5340 West Fayetteville Road

Atlanta, GA 30349–5416

American Dairy Association of Kentucky

5340 West Fayetteville Road

Atlanta, GA 30349–5416

American Dairy Association of Michigan

2163 Jolly Road

Okemos, MI 48864 

American Dairy Association of Mississippi

5340 West Fayetteville Road

Atlanta, GA 30349–5416

American Dairy Association of Nebraska

8205 F Street

Omaha, NE 68127–1779

American Dairy Association of 

 North Carolina

5340 West Fayetteville Road

Atlanta, GA 30349–5416

American Dairy Association of

 South Carolina

5340 West Fayetteville Road

Atlanta, GA 30349–5416

American Dairy Association of 

 South Dakota

2015 Rice Street

St. Paul, MN 55113

American Dairy Association of

Virginia

5340 West Fayetteville Road

Atlanta, GA 30349–5416

California Manufacturing Milk

Producers Advisory Board

3800 Cornucopia Way, Suite D

Modesto, CA 95358–9492

California Milk Producers 

Advisory Board

3800 Cornucopia Way, Suite D

Modesto, CA 95358–9492

Connecticut Milk Promotion Board

165 Capital Avenue

Hartford, Connecticut 06106

Dairy Council of California

1101 National Drive, Suite B

Sacramento, CA 95834–1945

Dairy Council of Michigan

2163 Jolly Road

Okemos, MI 48864

Dairy Council of Nebraska

8205 F Street

Omaha, NE 68127–1779

1
Appendix F, continued

Dairy Food Nutrition Council of the

Southeast

5340 West Fayetteville Road

Atlanta, GA 30349–5416

DairyMAX

2214 Paddock Way Drive, Suite 600

Grand Prairie, TX 75050

Dairy Promotion, Inc.

10220 NW Ambassador Drive

Kansas City, MO 64153

Florida Dairy Farmers

166 Lookout Place, Suite 100

Maitland, FL 32751–4496

Georgia Agricultural Commodity 

 Commission for Milk

19 Martin Luther King Jr., Dr., SW, Room 328

Atlanta, GA 30334

Granite State Dairy Promotion

c/o New Hampshire Department of Agriculture

25 Capitol Street, Box 2042

Concord, NH 03302–2042

Idaho Dairy Products Commission

10221 West Emerald, Suite 180

Boise, ID 83704

Illinois Milk Promotion Board

1701 Towanda Avenue

Bloomington, IL 61701

Indiana Dairy Industry Development Board

9360 Castlegate Drive

Indianapolis, IN 46256

Kansas Dairy Commission 

2545 294th Rd.

Muscotah, KS 66058

Louisiana Dairy Industry Promotion Board

c/o Louisiana Department of 

Agriculture and Forestry

47076 North Morrison Street

Hammond, LA 70401 

Maine Dairy and Nutrition Council

333 Cony Road

Augusta, ME 04330

Maine Dairy Promotion Board

333 Cony Road

Augusta, ME 04330

Massachusetts Dairy Promotion Board

Suite 500, 251 Causeway Street

Boston, MA 02114

Michigan Dairy Market Program

P.O. Box 8002

Novi, MI 48376–8002 

Mid–Atlantic Dairy Association

325 Chestnut Street, Suite 600

Philadelphia, PA 19106

Midwest Dairy Association

2015 Rice Street

St. Paul, MN 55113 

Midwest Dairy Council

2015 Rice Street

St. Paul, MN 55113 

Milk for Health on the Niagara Frontier, Inc.

4185 Seneca Street

West Seneca, NY 14224

Milk Industry Development Fund of

Puerto Rico

P.P. Box 360454

San Juan, Puerto Rico 00936-0454

2
Appendix F, continued

Milk Promotion Services of Indiana, Inc.

9360 Castlegate Drive

Indianapolis, IN 46256

Minnesota Dairy Research and Promotion 

 Council

2015 Rice Street

St. Paul, MN 55113

Nebraska Dairy Industry Development 

 Board

8205 F Street

Omaha, NE 68127–1779

Nevada Farm Bureau Dairy Producers

 Committee

2165 Green Vista Drive, Suite 205

Sparks, NV 89431

New England Dairy and Food Council, Inc.

1034 Commonwealth Avenue

Boston, MA 02215

New England Dairy Promotion Board

1034 Commonwealth Avenue

Boston, MA 02215

New Jersey Dairy Industry Advisory Council 

c/o New Jersey Dept. of Agriculture

PO Box 330

Trenton, NJ 08625–0330

New York State Dept. of Agriculture and

 Markets, 

Division of Milk Control and Dairy Services

10 B Airline Drive

Albany, NY 12235–0001

North Dakota Dairy Promotion Commission

2015 Rice Street

St. Paul, MN 55113

Oregon Dairy Products Commission

10505 Southwest Barbur Boulevard

Portland, OR 97219

Pennsylvania Dairy Promotion Program

c/o Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture

2301 North Cameron Street

Harrisburg, PA 17110–9408

Promotion Services, Inc.

5340 West Fayetteville Road

Atlanta, GA 30349–5416

Rochester Health Foundation, Inc.

c/o American Dairy Association and 

Dairy Council, Inc.

Interstate Place II, 100 Elwood Road

North Syracuse, NY 13212

St. Louis District Council

1254 Hanley Industrial Court

St. Louis, MO 63144-1912

Southeast United Dairy Industry Association

5340 West Fayetteville Road

Atlanta, GA 30349–5416

Southwest Dairy Museum

P.O. Box 936

Sulphur Springs, TX 7548

Tennessee Dairy Promotion Committee

5340 West Fayetteville Road

Atlanta, GA 30349–5416

United Dairymen of Arizona

2008 S. Hardy Drive

Tempe, AZ 85282

Utah Dairy Commission

1213 East 2100 South

Salt Lake City, UT 84106

3
Vermont Dairy Promotion Council

116 State Street, Drawer 20

Montpelier, VT 05620–2901

Washington State Dairy Council

4201 198th Street, SW, Suite 102

Lynnwood, WA 98036–6751

Washington State Dairy Products 

Commission

4201 198th Street, SW, Suite 101

Lynnwood, WA 98036

Western Dairy Association

12000 North Washington Street, Suite 200

Thornton, CO 80241

Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board, Inc.

8418 Excelsior Drive

Madison, WI 53717

Cheese Importers Association of America

(Importer Qualified Program)

204 E Street, NE

Washington, DC 20002

Global Dairy Platform

(Importer Qualified Program)

10255 West Higgins, Suite 800

Rosemont, IL 60018

Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board and

Wisconsin Dairy Producers

(Importer Qualified Program)

8418 Excelsior Drive

Madison, WI 53717

4
Appendix G

National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board

Milk Mustache Posters – Moms

1 2 3

4 5 6

1 Angie Harmon

2 Susan Sarandon

3 Felicity Huffman & William H. Macy

4 Maggie Gyllenhaal

5 Charlie Brown & Friends

6 Modern Family
Appendix G, Continued

Milk Mustache Posters - Moms (cont’d.)

1 2 3

4 5 6

1 Heidi Klum

2 Aaron Rogers

3 Shaquille O’Neal & Mom

4 Harrison Ford

5 Kellogg’s Icons

6 Sofia Vergara
Appendix G, Continued

Milk Mustache Posters - Refuel

1 Lindsey Vonn

2 Apolo Ohno

3 Chris Bosh

4 Lindsey Vonn School Poster

5 Chris Bosh School Poster

 1 2

 3

4 5

5 
Appendix G, Continued

Milk Mustache Posters – Teens

1 2

3 4 5

1 Bridgit Mendler

2 Victoria Justice School Poster

3 Julianne Hough

4 Ryan Reynolds / Green Lantern

5 Ashley Tisdale

6 The “Nine” Contest Winners

6
Appendix G, Continued

Milk Mustache Posters – Hispanic

1 Edith González

2 Marco Antonio Solis

3 Bárbara Bermudo

4 Doreen Colondres Advertorial

5 Sofia Vergara

6 Bárbara Bermudo Advertorial

1 2

3 4

5 6
Region 1

[2]

Region 2

[7]

Region 3

[2]

Region 4

[4]

Region 5

[2]

Region 6

[5]

Region 7

[2]

Region 8

[2]

Region 10

[2]

Region 11

[2]

Appendix H-1

Regions of the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board

Note: The number in brackets below each region

indicates the number of members within that region.

Effective December 23, 2011.

Region 12

[3]

Region 9

[3]
Appendix H-2

 Regions of the National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board

Region 13

Region 14

Region 15

Region 12

Region 7

Region 11

Region 10

Region 8

Region 2

Region 1

Region 3 Region 6

Region 9 Region 4

Region 5

2