U.S. Department of Agriculture

Report to Congress

on the

Dairy Promotion

and Research Program

and the

Fluid Milk

Processor Promotion Program

2015 Program Activities
2

Contents

Contact Information.........................................................................................3

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

Chapter 1: The Dairy and Fluid Milk Processor Promotion

Programs........................................................................................................7

Chapter 2: USDA Activities..............................................................................18

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

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

Program........................................................................................................22

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

Nutrition Education Programs..............................................................................45

Additional Information: 2015 Approved Contracts, National Dairy Foods Research Centers, 

Research Activities, and Audits............................................................................51

 
3

Contact Information

Promotion, Research, and Planning Division

Dairy Program, 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

Oral Capps, Jr., Ph.D.

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

Consumer Economics Research Center

Texas A&M University

Department of Agricultural Economics

2124 TAMU

College Station, TX 77843

(979) 845-5911

Email: AFCERC@tamu.edu

http://AFCERC.tamu.edu

National Dairy Promotion and Research Board

Dairy Management Inc.

10255 West Higgins Road, Suite 900

Rosemont, IL 60018-5616

(847) 803-2000

http://www.dairy.org

National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board

1250 H Street, NW, Suite 950

Washington, DC 20005

(202) 737-0153

http://www.milklife.com
4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program

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

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

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

information may be made available in languages other than English.

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

Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.

html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all

of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866)

632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of

Agriculture Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 1400 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.

gov. 

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

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

USDA over other similar products not named.

September 2017
5

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

oversight; and independent analyses of the effectiveness of the campaigns. Unless otherwise 

noted, this report addresses program activities for January 1 through December 31, 2015, of the 

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

Dairy Promotion and Research Program

Mandatory assessments collected under the Dairy Act totaled $112.7 million in 2015 including 

interest income. Expenditures by the Dairy Board and many of the Qualified Dairy Product 

Promotion, Research, or Nutrition Education Programs (QPs) are integrated through a joint 

process of planning and program implementation to work together on the national, regional, 

State, and local level. The Dairy Board continued to develop and implement programs to expand 

the human consumption of dairy products by focusing on partnerships and innovation, product 

positioning with consumers, and new places for dairy product consumption. 

The Dairy Board continued its support of dairy nutrition research, education, and communication 

and celebrated the National Dairy Council’s (NDC) 100th anniversary. NDC provides timely, 

scientifically sound nutrition information to the media, physicians, dietitians, nurses, educators, 

consumers, and other health professionals. 

The Dairy Board continued its support for childhood health and wellness through the design and 

launch of Fuel Up to Play 60 in espanol to encourage Spanish-speaking communities 

nationwide to live healthier lifestyles through good nutrition and physical activity.

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

activities can be found in Chapter 4. 

Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Program

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

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

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

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

contiguous 48 States and the District of Columbia. The Fluid Milk Board continued to focus on 
6

occasion-based strategies, long-range planning, and a strategic roadmap that identified breakfast 

at home as having the best potential to stem the decline in fluid milk consumption. 

During 2015, the Fluid Milk Board launched a variety of messages and ads highlighting milk’s 8 

grams of protein per 8-ounce serving. Through these messages, the Fluid Milk Board sought to 

educate the general market and Hispanic consumers on the versatility of fluid milk and the 

importance of protein in the morning. The Fluid Milk Board also continued its efforts to position 

chocolate milk as the recovery beverage of choice for athletes after strenuous exercise. 

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. Assessments collected in 

2015 totaled $92 million. Per the Fluid Milk Order requirement, $8.4 million was returned to the 

California Milk Processor Board. The California Milk Processor Board uses the funds to 

conduct its promotion activities, which include the got milk?® advertising campaign. The 

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

section in Chapter 1.

USDA Activities

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

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

administer the programs in accordance with the respective Acts and Orders and USDA 

guidelines and policies. USDA reviews and approved all board budgets, contracts, and 

advertising materials. USDA employees attend all board and committee meetings, monitor all 

board activities, and are responsible 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 management reviews. The boards reimburse the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, as 

required by the Acts, for all of USDA’s costs of program oversight and for the independent 

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

Independent Analysis

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

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

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

sponsored by the programs have helped mitigate the decline of fluid milk consumption. 

Chapter 3 presents the combined effects of 2015 promotion activities on the consumption of fluid 

milk, cheese, butter, all dairy products, and dairy exports and includes benefit-cost ratios (BCRs) 

for dairy producers and fluid milk processors. For every dollar invested in demand-enhancing 

activities, the BCRs for producers were as follows: (1) fluid milk - $2.99, (2) cheese - $7.72, and 

(3) butter - $32.06. The BCR for fluid milk processors attributed to fluid milk promotion 

activities is $3.79. 
7

Chapter 1

The Dairy and Fluid Milk Processor 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. 

I. National Dairy Promotion and Research Board 

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

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

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

approving budgets, and monitoring the program results.

The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) appoints 38 members to the Dairy Board, 36 of 

whom are dairy producers who each represent 1 of 12 geographic regions within the United 

States, and 2 who represent dairy importers. The appointments are made from nominations 

submitted by producer organizations, importer organizations, general farm organizations, and 

QPs. Members serve staggered 3-year terms, with no member serving more than two 

consecutive terms. 

Total Dairy Board income and expenses are displayed in Figure 1-1, The Dairy Board’s 

administrative budget continued to be within the 5-percent-of-revenue limitation required by the 

Dairy Order. An independent auditor’s report for 2015 is provided in Appendix C.

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

Committee and the Executive Committee. The F&A Committee consists of the Dairy Board 

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

F&A Committee. The full Dairy Board serves as the Executive Committee. The other Dairy 

Board committees are joint program committees with the United Dairy Industry Association 

(UDIA).

FIGURE 1-1

NATIONAL DAIRY PROMOTION AND RESEARCH BOARD

2015 AND 2014 ACTUAL INCOME AND EXPENSES

(THOUSANDS)

2015 2014

Revenues $112,787 $109,746

Budgeted Expenditures

Marketing Programs $104,242 $102,736

General and Administrative Expenses 4,813 4,441

USDA Oversight Expenses 501 585

Total Budgeted Expenditures $109,556 $107,726
8

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

between the Dairy Board and UDIA. UDIA is a federation of 19 of the 63 QPs under the 

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

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

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

expand dairy markets. The DMI Board of Directors comprises all Dairy Board (38) and all 

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

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

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

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

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

During 2015, DMI continued to implement a national staffing structure to plan and execute the 

national programs.

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

Research Centers and one Nutrition Institute provided much of the research in 2015. Their 

locations and the research objectives are provided in Appendix D. Universities and other 

industry researchers throughout the United States compete for these research contracts.

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

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

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

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

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

priorities, plan activities and projects, and evaluate results. During 2015, the Dairy Board and 

UDIA Board met jointly six times.

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

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

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

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

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

implemented in 2015.

National Dairy Council®

The National Dairy Council® http://www.nationaldairycouncil.org (NDC) celebrated its 100th

anniversary in 2015. NDC is the nutrition marketing arm of DMI and has been the leader in 

dairy nutrition research, education, and communication. NDC provides timely, scientifically 

sound nutrition information to the media, physicians, dietitians, nurses, educators, consumers, 

and other health professionals. Additionally, NDC funds independent research to aid in the 

ongoing discovery of information about dairy foods’ important role in a healthy lifestyle. This 

research provides insights to industry for new dairy product innovation.
9

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

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

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

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

consuming three daily servings of low-fat or fat-free dairy. Combined, these organizations 

represent more than 250,000 health professionals nationwide. 

As an extension of its online engagement with 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 nutrition and health 

and wellness experts. Through the blog, NDC provides the latest news, analysis, and opinions

on dairy-related nutrition and health research.

Fuel Up to Play 60 

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

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

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

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

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

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

During the 2015 school year, FUTP60 reached more than 38 million students in more than 

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

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

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

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

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

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

making healthy changes throughout the student body. 

GenYOUth Foundation

The GenYOUth Foundation (Foundation), launched in 2011 by NDC, is a non-profit 

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

eating and physical activity behaviors. The Foundation works with schools, communities, and 

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

and wellness arena, including FUTP60. 

In 2015, GenYOUth, FUTP60, and the Pepsico Foundation announced the launch of Fuel Up to 

Play 60 en espanol to encourage Spanish-speaking communities nationwide to live healthier 

lifestyles through good nutrition and physical activity. FUTP60 launched a redesigned website

to provide Spanish-language content and materials. Many organizations supported the 
10

translation effort, including the PepsiCo Foundation, which provided a grant to develop the 

Spanish-language materials and resources. 

U.S. Dairy Export Council

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

(USDEC). USDEC receives funding from three sources: DMI; USDA’s Foreign Agricultural 

Service (FAS); and membership dues from dairy cooperatives, processors, exporters, and 

suppliers. 

In 2015, USDEC received $16.4 million from DMI; $5.6 million from FAS’s Market Access 

Program and Foreign Market Development Program; and $1.5 million from membership dues. 

In 2015, USDEC continued to focus on maximizing its resources to USDEC members and 

aligning them with a shifting global business environment. USDEC has offices in Washington, 

D.C.; Mexico City, Mexico; Tokyo, Japan; Seoul, South Korea; Hong Kong and Shanghai, 

China; Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam; Bangkok, Thailand; Beirut, Lebanon; and São Paulo, Brazil

(Figure 1-2). 

Figure 1–2. USDEC Offices.

USDEC redesigned its website, www.thinkusadairy.org, to help increase demand for U.S. dairy 

ingredients by promoting the ways dairy affects 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 locate knowledge, laboratory, and professional 

resources to help develop or improve foods using dairy ingredients.
11

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 a competitive consumer marketplace.

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

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

one organization to collaborate on industry issues.

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, products, and planet. DMI staffs and supports the Innovation Center.

The Innovation Center moves its priorities forward 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 Committee – 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 Committee – 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 Committee – to improve food 

safety practices and to protect trust in dairy. 

Sustainability 

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, AR. 

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, the following projects and 

resources have been created to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions: 

1. Farm Smart: Includes support tools that adapt to the size, region, soils, and watersheds 

unique to each dairy. The tools give producers the ability to assess and mitigate their 
12

environmental profile; track and measure their footprint; plan for future improvements;

and communicate progress to customers, community members, regulators, and other 

stakeholders. 

2. Farm Energy Efficiency: Promotes energy conservation, efficiency, cost savings, and 

greenhouse gas reductions through outreach efforts linking dairy producers to programs 

and funds to assist with energy audits and technology upgrades. 

3. Dairy Power/Biogas Capture and Transport: Focuses on harnessing the value and 

potential of anaerobic methane digester systems for U.S. dairy producers. The project 

seeks to put 1,300 methane digesters on dairy farms by 2020. The project also focuses on 

partnerships between dairy farms, food processors, and retailers to turn waste into a 

source of value with methane digester systems by combining food waste with cow 

manure to maximize environmental, economic, and community benefits.

 

4. Cow of the Future: Seeks scientifically sound, economically viable, and socially 

responsible ways of reducing enteric methane emissions through improvements in dairy 

cow nutrition, genetics, and health. 

5. Dairy Plant Smart: Helps dairy processors and manufacturers track and reduce energy 

use, operating costs, and greenhouse gas emissions associated with energy, fuel, 

refrigerant, and packaging. The project provides an average of greenhouse gas emissions 

data for plants in the same region as well as a national average to serve as a benchmark. 

Dairy Plant Smart promotes dairy industry participation in the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA) Energy Star Challenge for Industry. The program recognizes 

individual dairy plants that have reduced their energy intensity by 10 percent within 5 

years.

6. Dairy Fleet Smart: Combines science-based decision-making tools with recommended 

management practices that reduce fuel consumption, costs, and greenhouse gas emissions 

associated with milk transportation and distribution. The tool complements the EPA’s 

SmartWay Program, which helps long-haul fleets and professional drivers reduce fuel 

consumption, emissions, and air pollution. When used in tandem with the SmartWay 

program, Dairy Fleet Smart provides performance improvement tools tailored to dairy 

industry shippers and carriers. 

Industry and Image Relations

Today’s consumers are less 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 website, 

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.
13

DMI continued www.dairygood.org, as a platform for the dairy industry to collectively come 

together and tell its story using unified messaging. The website’s goal is to put a “face” on the 

dairy industry and amplify conversations that take place in other dairy social media channels, 

such as NDC and FUTP60, to demonstrate dairy’s commitment to food and nutrition security, 

and to drive conversations to promote consumer confidence in the dairy industry and its 

products. 

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

DMI continued its “Telling Your Story” (TYS) program in 2015. TYS provides dairy producers 

with public relations, presentations, and media training to build and maintain consumers’ 

confidence in the dairy industry’s production practices and products. DMI’s TYS social media 

component uses Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and blogs to develop a network of social mediasavvy dairy advocates to tell the industry’s story, build a positive image, and counter inaccurate 

or uniformed commentary online about dairy farming practices and products. 

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 responds to media requests, trains dairy

spokespeople, builds third-party relationships within the agricultural industry, and distributes

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, the program developed a plan to 

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

outbreak, product contamination, or food-borne illness. The program led several regional crisis 

drills that engaged many sectors of the industry by focusing on hypothetical scenarios ranging 

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

helped to maintain the industry’s state of readiness and reinforced 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 website www.butterisbest.com, a consumer resource 

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

websites. DMI also continued to work with the Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board to execute cofunded retail butter promotion activities. The national effort helped to drive incremental retail 

butter sales in select markets across the United States.

II. 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 funded by 

fluid milk processors. The program is designed to educate Americans about the benefits of fluid 
14

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

products in the contiguous 48 States and the District of Columbia. The fluid milk marketing 

programs are research based and message focused for the purpose of positively changing the 

attitudes and purchase behavior of Americans regarding fluid milk. 

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

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

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

member must be from the general public. The members of the Fluid Milk Board serve 3-year 

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

that no company shall be represented on the Fluid Milk Board by more than three members. The 

Milk Processor Education Program (MilkPEP) carries out the activities of the Fluid Milk Board. 

The Fluid Milk Board elects four officers: chair, vice-chair, secretary, and treasurer. The chair 

assigns Fluid Milk Board members to the Fluid Milk Board’s occasion-based program 

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

activities and projects, and evaluating results. The Fluid Milk Board’s Finance Committee 

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 2015.

Fluid Milk Board income and expenses are displayed in Figure 1-3. The Fluid Milk Board’s 

administrative budget continued to be within the 5-percent-of-revenue limitation required by the 

Fluid Milk Order. An independent auditor’s report for 2015 is provided in Appendix A.

FIGURE 1-3

NATIONAL FLUID MILK PROCESSOR PROMOTION BOARD

2015 AND 2014 ACTUAL INCOME AND EXPENSES

(THOUSANDS)

2015 2014

Revenues $96,822 $97,326

Expenditures

General Market $66,799 $62,860

Chocolate Milk 13,724 17,760

Strategy and Market Research 2,575 2,806

California Grant 9,017 9,221

General and Administrative 2,162 2,884

USDA Oversight 488 338

Total Budgeted Expenditures $94,765 $95,869

Medical Advisory Board

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

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

meet in 2015. 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, 
15

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

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

Nutrition and Dietetics, and the American Heart Association. The MAB members were also

featured as medical professionals in the media, providing science-based statements supporting 

the health benefits of fluid milk.

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

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

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

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

recovery and rehydration.

Fluid Milk Programs

Milk Life Committee– General Market and Hispanic

MilkPEP’s popular Milk Life® consumer campaign focuses on fluid milk and its nutritional 

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

In 2015, MilkPEP’s white milk marketing efforts continued to focus on reinvigorating fluid

milk’s relevancy and the importance of getting enough protein every morning, including the 8 

grams of protein in every 8-ounce serving of milk. The Milk Life® campaign included print, 

television, digital advertising, retail promotions, public relations, and social media all supporting 

the benefits of fluid milk’s protein. In 2015, MilkPEP launched the Milk Life® Challenge, 

consisting of 31 days of attainable, everyday tasks inspiring consumers to “Milk Life®.” The 

Challenge reached nearly 13.5 million consumers. The Milk Life® campaign continues its 

efforts to improve consumers’ perceptions of milk and encouraging them to choose milk for 

themselves and their families. 

In 2015, MilkPEP, in partnership with Feeding America®, continued the Great American Milk 

Drive, the first-ever national program designed to deliver nutrient-rich gallons of milk to families 

in need who struggle with food insecurity. Milk is one of the most requested, yet least donated, 

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

able to provide, on average, less than 1 gallon of milk per person per year. MilkPEP’s Great 

American Milk Drive encourages consumers across the United States to donate milk to families 

in need through online or in-store donations. In 2015, with 68 retailers activating in the program, 

over 320,000 gallons of milk were collected at retail and more than 5.1 million servings of milk 

were donated to Feeding America® families across the United States. The program generated 

more than 200 million media impressions nationwide, increasing the awareness and need for 

more milk in food banks. 

In 2015, MilkPEP launched Get Real, an industry-wide social advocacy initiative focused on 

communicating the health benefits of milk and driving consumer awareness of five science-based 

“Milk Truths” via social and traditional media. This campaign, designed to improve consumers’

confidence in milk and to correct common milk myths, engaged in productive dialogue with 

consumers and garnered more than 225 million total positive impressions from traditional media, 
16

paid tactics, and social media. The campaign continued to promote positive stories about milk to 

audiences and reminded consumers of the nutritional and lifestyle benefits of consuming milk. 

MilkPEP continued its Hispanic campaign as part of the industry’s outreach to the growing 

Hispanic population. MilkPEP maintained synergy with its general market consumer campaign, 

Milk Life®, by leveraging the importance of protein in the diet and utilizing ambassadors of 

strength to inspire Hispanic viewers with the Somos Fuertes (We Are Strong) initiative. The 

Somos Fuertes campaign promotes the importance of milk’s nutrition, and especially protein, for 

strength and success. The campaign included 2 commercial television spots, 8 live customcooking segments, 4 brand spotlights and 1 Milk Life® vignette maximizing milk messaging and 

generating 2.3 million impressions. The campaign also engaged popular musician Horge 

Narvaez and prima ballerinas Lorena and Lorna Feijoo, promoting the importance of drinking 

milk, and engaged top Hispanic bloggers to share milk-based recipes and personal experiences of 

incorporating milk and its nutrition into everyday life. 

Built with Chocolate Milk Committee

MilkPEP’s Built with Chocolate Milk program continued to promote its lowfat chocolate milk 

message for exercise recovery to athletes in 2015, focusing promotional efforts around soccer 

and basketball. To engage new audiences, MilkPEP promoted the benefits of recovering and 

rebuilding muscles with chocolate milk after strenuous exercise to athletes and exercisers 

nationwide seeking recovery after a tough workout. MilkPEP continued its successful 

partnerships with the Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathon and the IRONMAN series to engage tough 

exercisers with product samples and the chocolate milk recovery message. Sixteen milk 

companies participated in marquee events in 2015, contributing nearly 200,000 samples of 

lowfat chocolate milk to athletes as they crossed the finish lines. 

Contiguously with the 2015 Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) Women’s 

World Cup, MilkPEP partnered with United States Women’s National Soccer Team forward, 

Kelley O’Hara, in a campaign for Built with Chocolate Milk, showcasing how elite athletes 

recover with chocolate milk. This campaign, featuring Kelley O’Hara, included print ads, social 

media conversations, and online videos, generating a total of 14.3 million social impressions. 

In 2015, Kevin Love of the Cleveland Cavaliers also joined the Built with Chocolate Milk team 

as part of a campaign promoting chocolate milk as his recovery beverage of choice. The 

campaign included online video content, media relations, and social media conversations during 

Cleveland Cavaliers basketball games, generating a total of 43 million social impressions. 

Team Chocolate Milk consists of over 120 athletes who engage their audiences on social media 

about their training techniques, race information, and recovery with lowfat chocolate milk. The 

Built with Chocolate Milk campaign continued its partnership with the Challenged Athletes 

Foundation as the “Official Recovery Beverage” and joined forces to help people with physical 

challenges pursue active lifestyles through race entries, gear, and grants. The athletes served as 

spokespeople wearing branded gear during races and participating in media interviews. The 

Built with Chocolate Milk campaign also continued to promote strong relationships with Team 
17

Chocolate Milk elite athletes, including Mirinda “Rinny” Carfrae, Craig “Crowie” Alexander, 

and Luke McKenzie, by supporting them on social media channels throughout 2015.

Industry Collaboration and Business Development

The Milk Revitalization Alliance (Alliance), a partnership between MilkPEP and DMI, is 

designed to accomplish the common goal of revitalizing fluid milk sales through strategic 

partnerships and optimizing joint programs of both organizations. The Alliance has resulted in 

successful collaborations in social media and issues management geared towards reinforcing 

consumers’ trust and confidence in fluid milk. In 2015, DMI and MilkPEP jointly launched the 

Get Real program focusing on uniting the industry with one voice around common issues and 

continuing to make milk relevant for consumers. MilkPEP and DMI’s collaboration on The 

Great American Milk Drive continues to be successful with strong industry representation. In 

2015, 18 processors and 16 Dairy Councils leveraged MilkPEP assets to host and participate in 

24 Great American Milk Drive events nationwide. 

MilkPEP continued its commitment to conducting research and building the strategy for the 

consumer campaign. MilkPEP conducted research that shaped the direction of the consumerfacing MilkLife® and Power of Protein programs. Additionally, MilkPEP continued to conduct 

research on the Built with Chocolate Milk recovery message strategy, aiding the effort in

campaign development. Ongoing efforts such as the Consumption Tracker, Attitude and 

Awareness Tracker, and All Channel Tracking helped MilkPEP identify what is happening in 

milk consumption and develop new plans to drive better business practices. MilkPEP also 

continued the Nutrition News Bureau program, ensuring the positive research showing milk’s 

benefits was reported in the media, as well as its Supermarket Registered Dietician program, 

which reinforces Supermarket Dieticians’ understanding of the importance of milk and 

conveying milk’s nutritional benefits in in-store programs. 
18

Chapter 2

USDA Activities 

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

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

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

amendments, contracts, advertising campaigns, and investment plans. Materials are monitored 

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

for Americans, and other legislation. AMS Dairy Program also uses the “Guidelines for AMS 

Oversight of Commodity Research and Promotion Programs” to govern oversight and facilitate 

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

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

promotion funds is consistent with the enabling legislation and Orders; certifies Qualified 

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

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

collection, compliance, and enforcement actions. 

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

amending the Orders, conducting referenda, public and industry communications, and 

conducting periodic management reviews. AMS Dairy Program representatives attend full board 

and committee meetings and other meetings related to the programs.

Dairy Promotion and Research Program Oversight 

Nominations and Appointments

The Dairy Board is composed of 38 members, 

including 36 domestic dairy producers and 2 dairy 

importers, who administer the program. Dairy Board 

members serve 3-year terms, with no member serving 

more than two consecutive terms. Dairy Board 

members must be active dairy producers or dairy 

importers. The Secretary selects dairy producer 

members from nominations submitted by producer 

organizations, general farm organizations representing 

dairy producers, Qualified Programs, or other 

interested parties. The Secretary selects dairy importer 

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

organizations representing dairy importers. 
19

Collections

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

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

Order, collect an assessment based 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 for dairy producers is 15 cents per hundredweight of milk for 

commercial use or the equivalent thereof, as determined by the Secretary. In addition, the rate of 

assessment for imported dairy products prescribed by the order is 7.5 cents per hundredweight of 

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

The Dairy Act provides that dairy producers can direct up to 10 cents of their 15-cent-perhundredweight assessment to Qualified Programs. For 2015, the net Dairy Board assessment 

was approximately 5.32 cents per hundredweight of milk marketed. The Dairy Act also provides 

that dairy importers can designate 2.5 cents of their 7.5-cent per hundredweight assessment to 

Qualified Programs. If dairy producers or dairy importers do not specify designation to a 

Qualified Program, the entire assessment is retained by the Dairy Board for use by the national 

program. 

Contracts

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

Secretary. During 2015, the AMS Dairy Program reviewed and approved 351 Dairy Board and 

DMI agreements, amendments, and annual plans. 

Contractor Audits 

In 2015, DMI retained the certified public accounting firm of Ernst & Young to audit the records 

of the following contractors: Agribusiness-Connect Asia; fairlife, LLC; MMS Education;

National Milk Producers Federation; and the University of Minnesota. No material exceptions 

were found. 

USDA Foreign Agricultural Service

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

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

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

related contracts. The AMS Dairy Program also reviews USDEC contracts to ensure 

conformance with the Dairy Act, Dairy Order, and with established USDA policies. In 2015, the 

AMS Dairy Program reviewed and approved 99 USDEC contracts.

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 
20

administered by the AMS (70 FR 2743, published January 14, 2005). The final rule amended 

Section 1150.157 of the Dairy Order. In States having mandatory assessment laws, organic dairy 

producers are exempt only from the Federal assessment. Organic producers are still responsible 

for remittance of State assessments. In 2015, the amount of exempted assessments was 

$1,051,000. The Dairy Order requires organic producers to re-apply annually to continue to 

receive the exemption.

USDA Dairy Promotion and Research Program Expenses

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

for the cost of administrative oversight and compliance audit activities. In 2015, the AMS Dairy 

Program’s oversight expenses totaled $561,599, and the Federal Milk Market Administrators 

incurred $212,515 in expenses for verification audits conducted on behalf of the Dairy Board. 

Qualified Programs

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

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

active programs prior to the Dairy Act. In 2015, the AMS Dairy Program reviewed applications 

for continued qualification from 65 Qualified Programs. A list of the Qualified Programs is 

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

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

Qualified Program, and data reported are included in aggregate for 2015 in Chapter 4.

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 Milk Order) 

provides that no company shall be represented on the Fluid 

Milk Board by more than three representatives. Fluid Milk 

Board members who fill vacancies with a term of 18 

months or less may serve two additional 3-year terms. The 

Secretary selects Fluid Milk Board members from 

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

Program Development

The Fluid Milk Board contracted with Commonground/MGS, and the Interpublic Group 

Agencies of: CMGRP, Inc. d/b/a Weber Shandwick; FCB Worldwide, Inc.; and Lowe Campbell 

Ewald, to develop its Hispanic advertising/public relations, mom and teen advertising, 

promotions, and consumer education/public relations respectively. In November 2015, the 

Board terminated its agreement with Commonground/MGS. 
21

Collections

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

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

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

Contracts

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

be approved by the Secretary. During 2015, the AMS Dairy Program approved 196 Fluid Milk 

Board agreements, amendments, contracts, and annual plans. 

Contractor Audits

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

Hamilton, & Associates, P.C. (Snyder Cohn), in 2015 to audit the records of: CMGRP, Inc. d/b/a 

Weber Shandwick; Commonground/MGS; FCB Worldwide, Inc.; and Lowe Campbell Ewald. 

Snyder Cohn’s engagement and agreed-upon procedures were to determine if the agencies had 

conformed to the financial and regulatory compliance requirements specified in their individual 

agreements with the Fluid Milk Board. No material exceptions were found. 

USDA Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Program Expenses

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

administrative oversight and compliance audit activities. In 2015, the AMS Dairy Program’s 

oversight expenses totaled $364,495 and the Federal Milk Market Administrators incurred 

$121,128 in expenses for verification audits conducted on behalf of the Fluid Milk Board. 
22

Chapter 3

Quantitative Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Promotion Activities by the 

National Dairy Promotion and Research Program and the National Fluid 

Milk Processor Promotion Program – 2015 Activities

Introduction

The Dairy Act and 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 promotion programs. Due to data revisions, the results from the 2015 report 

are not comparable to previous reports.

Background on the Promotion Program

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

program that maintains and expands domestic and foreign markets for fluid milk and dairy 

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

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

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

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

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

(UDIA). UDIA is a federation of 19 of the 64 Qualified Programs1 (QPs) under the direction of 

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

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

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

opportunities to expand dairy markets. 

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

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

and uses for fluid milk products produced in the United States. Fluid milk processors marketing 

more than 3 million pounds of fluid milk per month pay a 20-cent-per-hundredweight assessment 

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

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

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

Promotion Program. 

 1 Qualified Dairy Product Promotion, Research, and Nutrition Educational Programs (QPs) are State, regional, local, 

or importer promotion programs certified annually by the Secretary of Agriculture to receive a portion of the funds 

generated under the National Dairy Promotion and Research Program. 
23

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

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

processors, are hereinafter referred to as the National Programs.

Objectives of the Evaluation Study

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

increased the demand for fluid milk and manufactured dairy products? 

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

between consumption of dairy products and promotion program demand-enhancing 

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

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

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

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

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

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

example, a BCR from a 1-dollar investment that returns 5 dollars is the same (5 to 1) as the BCR 

for a 1-billion dollar investment that returns 5 billion dollars. Thus, the ratio between additional 

revenue and additional funding (the BCR) declines as funding increases. Further, it is often the 

case that other metrics such as impacts on consumption and exports are much more revealing and 

useful.

The objectives of this report are threefold: 

1. Determine the combined effects of the program activities of MilkPEP, DMI, and 

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

 exports;

2. Develop and implement a simulation model to calculate BCRs for dairy producers

 and fluid milk processors; and 

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

assessments.

This project covers the time period from 1995 to 2015 and captures the joint efforts of DMI, 

MilkPEP, and QPs. The QP data for this report were revised to more accurately reflect the 

division of demand-enhancing expenditures and actual QP assessment collections. As the QP 

data contribute to a large percentage of the promotion funding, these revisions do not allow for a 

direct prior year comparison. 

Summary of the Findings
24

The overall finding of this evaluation is that the National Programs have effectively increased the 

demand (domestic and exports) for dairy products. The gains in profit at the farm level were far 

larger than the costs associated with the National Programs combined. The impacts on 

producers’, as well as on fluid milk processors’, spending are summarized with BCRs. The 

BCRs are based on the demand-enhancing expenditures only; therefore, they do not account for 

certain operating expenses such as overhead, technical support, and industry relations.

The BCRs expressed in terms of producer profit at the farm level were calculated to be $2.99 for 

every dollar invested in demand-enhancing activities for fluid milk; $7.72 for every dollar 

invested in demand-enhancing activities for cheese; and $32.06 for every dollar invested in 

demand-enhancing activities for butter. The BCR of export promotion is $5.59 per dollar 

invested. Under both the aggregated fat and skim solids basis, a significant positive relationship 

exists between the demand for dairy and the National Programs expenditure, in both the short run 

and the long run. The aggregate all-dairy BCR is 4.97, meaning that the producer profit 

increases by $4.97 for each 1-dollar investment in demand-enhancing activities. 

The United States imported between $2.8 billion and $4.7 billion in dairy products in each of the 

last 5 years. Cheese products accounted for slightly more than one-third, by value, of the dairy 

imports. Effective April 1, 2011, importers of dairy products paid assessments to the National 

Dairy Promotion and Research Program. Import assessment funds totaled between $3.41 million 

and $4.17 million dollars per year between 2012 and 2015. The import assessment has 

amounted to less than 1 percent of the total demand-enhancing expenditures made by DMI, 

MilkPEP, and the QPs.

Due to promotion funds collected from importers, imported cheese levels were higher by roughly 

1.5 million pounds. Unit values of cheese imports amounted to roughly $3.42 per pound on 

average over the period 2011 to 2015. Hence, incremental revenue to importers solely from 

cheese attributed to the import assessment totaled roughly $5.0 million.

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

BCR is calculated using the milk cost as a proxy for cost of production. The BCR in terms of a 

fluid milk processer is a $3.79 return to fluid milk processors for every dollar invested in 

demand-enhancing activities for fluid milk.

With regard to methodology, the structural econometric models that are the basis for these 

findings are statistically valid and consistent with prior studies in the literature on evaluation of 

generic commodity promotion. 

DMI, MilkPEP, and QP Promotion Program Expenditures 

The data for this analysis were acquired from DMI, QPs, and MilkPEP. The demand-enhancing 

expenditures from all three entities were aggregated. 

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

Advertising dollars are directed to media outlets including television, outdoor, print, radio, and 
25

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

research activities. These expenditures are classified as demand-enhancing expenditures. 

Expenditures for overhead, technical support, and industry relations are excluded from this 

analysis because they are not primarily demand enhancing. 

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

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

manufactured dairy products, and dairy ingredients. Currently, DMI’s strategies include: 

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

attracting partner co-investment to fund demand-enhancing efforts; and maximizing resources 

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

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

increase sales of fluid milk and dairy products.

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

to 2015 are depicted in Table 3-1 and in Figure 3-1. On average, slightly more than $362 million 

in total was spent annually by the respective entities over this period and between $398 million 

to $410 million since 2013. Historically, the nominal shares of promotional expenditures on 

average were 26 percent for DMI, 24 percent for MilkPEP, and 50 percent for QPs.

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

available on a quarterly basis. QP data are only available on an annual basis. To estimate 

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

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

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

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

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

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

dairy products (fluid and manufacturing) combined on a quarterly basis from 1995 to 2015 are 

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

$115.0 million per quarter, averaging $81.6 million.
26

Table 3-1. Annual Dairy Management, Inc., Milk Processor Education Program, and Qualified 

Program Promotion Program Expenditures, 1995 to 20151

Year DMI MilkPEP QPs Total

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2004* $90,171 $97,167 $173,434 $360,772

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

2006 $73,067 $92,030 $182,443 $347,540

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

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 $166,460 $346,205

2012* $82,360 $91,893 $214,764 $389,016

2013* $93,184 $89,633 $218,877 $401,695

2014 $102,728 $83,426 $211,348 $397,502

2015 $107,133 $83,098 $219,660 $409,891 1

Thousands of dollars

*QP data were revised 

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

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

MilkPEP, and QPs on a quarterly basis from 1995 to 2015 are exhibited in Figure 3-3. From 

1995 to 2015, nominal seasonally adjusted quarterly promotion program expenditures for fluid 

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

period from 1995 to 2015, nominal seasonally adjusted demand-enhancing expenditures for fluid 

milk were $35.3 million per quarter.

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

cheese ranged from $12.8 million to $27.6 million from 1995 to 2004, averaging $21.5 million 

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

cheese were much smaller compared to the period from 1995 to 2004. On average, expenditures 

on cheese marketing and promotion were $12.0 million during the period. Expenditures on 

cheese increased from the fourth quarter of 2008 to the end of 2015. During this latter 

timeframe, nominal quarterly expenditures on cheese marketing and promotion activities ranged 

from $7.7 million to $19.2 million, averaging $12.4 million per quarter. Over the period 1995 to 

2015, nominal seasonally adjusted demand-enhancing expenditures for cheese averaged $16.8 

million per quarter.
27

Figure 3-1. Annual Dairy Management, Inc., Milk Processor Education Program, and Qualified 

Program Promotion Expenditures, 1995 to 2015

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

Figure 3-2. Nominal Seasonally Adjusted Demand-Enhancing Dairy Management, Inc., Milk 

Processor Education Program, and Qualified Program Expenditures for All Dairy Products, 

1995.1 to 2015.4*

50,000,000

60,000,000

70,000,000

80,000,000

90,000,000

100,000,000

110,000,000

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

*

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

nutrition education, and market and economic research.

Source: Dairy Management, Inc., Milk Processor Education Program, Qualified Programs, and calculations by 

the authors.

Dollars

Dollars
28

Figure 3-3. Nominal Seasonally Adjusted Demand-Enhancing Dairy Management, Inc., Milk 

Processor Education Program, and Qualified Program Expenditures for Fluid Milk, 1995.1 to 

2015.4

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 2012 2014

Source: Dairy Management, Inc., Milk Processor Education Program, Qualified Programs, and calculations 

by the authors.

Figure 3-4. Nominal Seasonally Adjusted Demand-Enhancing Dairy Management, Inc., and 

Qualified Program Expenditures for Cheese, 1995.1 to 2015.4

4,000,000

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 2012 2014

Source: Dairy Management, Inc., Qualified Programs, and calculations by the authors.

Dollars Dollars
29

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

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

slightly more than $1 million per quarter over the period 1995 to 2015. Marketing and 

promotion expenditures for butter are a fraction of comparable expenditures for fluid milk and 

cheese. 

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

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

increasing number of campaigns affecting multiple products, it is important to assess demand 

enhancements for the aggregate of dairy products as well as within specific product markets.

Promotion program funds are also invested in global dairy markets. The export promotion 

programs as analyzed by this analysis are shown in Figure 3-6a. Nominal seasonally adjusted 

DMI expenditures directed to dairy exports on a quarterly basis ranged from just under $800 to 

approximately $4.5 million. The trend in these DMI expenditures has been upward from 1995 to 

2015, averaging about $2.3 million per quarter over this period. As exhibited in Figure 3-6b, 

nominal seasonally adjusted funds awarded through USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) 

directed to exports of dairy products on a quarterly basis varied from just under $310,000 to 

about $1.8 million over the period of 1997 to 2015. On average, FAS funds were nearly $1 

million per quarter. As presented in Figure 3-6c, nominal seasonally adjusted DMI as well as 

USDA FAS expenditures ranged from $881 to $5.9 million per quarter, averaging $3.2 million

on a quarterly basis from 1995 to 2015.

Figure 3-5. Nominal Seasonally Adjusted Demand-Enhancing Dairy Management, Inc., and 

Qualified Program Expenditures for Butter, 1995.1 to 2015.4

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 2012 2014

Source: Dairy Management, Inc., Qualified Programs, and calculations by the authors.

Dollars
30

Figure 3-6a. Nominal Seasonally Adjusted Dairy Management, Inc., Expenditures Directed to 

Exports of Dairy Products, 1995.1 to 2015.4

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

Source: Dairy Management, Inc., and calculations by the authors.

Figure 3-6b. Nominal Seasonally Adjusted U.S. Department of Agriculture Foreign 

Agricultural Service Funds Awarded To Be Directed to Exports of Dairy Products, 1997.1 to 

2015.4*

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 2012 2014

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

Quarterly interpolations were made for these years.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, and calculations by the authors.

Dollars Dollars
31

Figure 3-6c. Nominal Seasonally Adjusted Dairy Management, Inc., and U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service Funds Directed to Exports of Dairy Products, 1995.1 to 

2015.4

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

Source: Calculations by authors.

Effective April 1, 2011, importers of dairy products paid assessments to the National Dairy 

Promotion and Research Program. Two-thirds of the import assessment is allocated to the 

National Dairy Board, and the remaining amount can be designated to be used by one of three 

QPs: (1) Cheese Importers Association of America; (2) Global Dairy Platform; and (3) the 

Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board, Inc.

Import assessment funds totaled between $3.41 million and $4.18 million per year during the 4

full years since 2012 in which the import assessment has been in effect. The total funds 

collected declined modestly between 2012 and 2014, and then rose subsequently by 25 percent 

during 2015. The cumulative import assessment funds totaled $15.58 million from September 

2011 to December 2015. On a monthly basis, funds from the dairy import assessment ranged 

from $210,086 to $465,976, averaging $299,664 over the period September 2011 to December 

2015 (Figure 3-7). The import assessment has amounted to less than 1.0 percent of the total 

demand-enhancing expenditures by DMI and the QPs in each year between 2012 and 2014. In 

2015, the import assessment was just over 1.0 percent of these expenditures.

Trends in Consumption 

On average, over the 1995 to 2015 period, quarterly per capita consumption (measured by 

combining domestic commercial disappearance and imports) of butter, cheese, and fluid milk 

was 1.23 pounds, 802 pounds, and 46.12 pounds, respectively. The range of quarterly 

consumption for butter was from 0.9 pounds to 1.8 pounds, for cheese from 6.5 pounds to 9.8 

pounds, and for fluid milk from 36.6 pounds to 53.3 pounds. Fluid milk consumption (Figure 

3-8) has been trending down over the period, on a per capita basis. Recent research found that Dollars
32

declining consumption reflects changes in the frequency of fluid milk intake, rather than changes 

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

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

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

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

beverages. 

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

Over the time period 1995 to 2015, the range of commercial disappearance of cheese on a per 

capita basis was from 6.5 pounds per quarter to 9.8 pounds per quarter, averaging about 8.0 

pounds. 

Butter consumption per capita (Figure 3-10) has grown modestly over time and exhibits seasonal 

patterns. Over the time period 1995 to 2015, the range of commercial disappearance of butter on 

a per capita basis was from 0.9 pounds per quarter to 1.8 pounds per quarter, averaging roughly 

1.2 pounds. U.S. butter consumption on a per capita basis hit a 40-year high in the fourth quarter 

of 2013. 

On average, on a fat basis (Figure 3-11), the commercial disappearance of all dairy products 

amounted to 149 pounds per quarter, ranging from 136 pounds to 163 pounds per quarter. On a 

skim-solids basis (Figure 3-12), on average, the commercial disappearance of all dairy products 

amounted to 137 pounds per quarter, ranging from 130 pounds to 142 pounds per quarter. 

Total U.S. dairy exports grew strongly over the 1995 to 2015 period despite a drop beginning in

the third quarter of 2015. Exports have grown faster on a skim-solids basis than on a fat basis

(Figure 3-13). The United States imported between $2.8 billion and $4.7 billion in dairy 

products in each of the last 5 years. Cheese products accounted for slightly more than one-third, 

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

were highest in 2015 at 37 percent and lowest in 2012 at 36 percent. Cheese imports grew faster 

in value terms than in tonnage between 2011 and 2015, indicating that imports have increasingly 

been comprised of higher value product types.
33

Figure 3-7. Funds from Dairy Import Assessments, by Month, September 2011 to December 

2015

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture

Figure 3-8. Per Capita U.S. Consumption of Fluid Milk, 1995.1 to 2015.4

36

40

44

48

52

56

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Pounds
34

Figure 3-9. Per Capita U.S. Consumption of Cheese, 1995.1 to 2015.4

6.4

6.8

7.2

7.6

8.0

8.4

8.8

9.2

9.6

10.0

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Figure 3-10. Per Capita U.S. Consumption of Butter, 1995.1 to 2015.4

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Pounds Pounds
35

Figure 3-11. Per Capita U.S. Consumption of All Dairy Products on a Milk-Equivalent Fat 

Basis, 1995.1 to 2015.4

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

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

1995.1 to 2015.4

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

136

140

144

148

152

156

160

164

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

128

130

132

134

136

138

140

142

144

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

Pounds

Pounds
36

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

Basis, 1995.1 to 2015.4

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

Figure 3-14. U.S. Dairy Imports and Share of Cheese in Dairy Import Value, 2010-2015

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

34.0%

34.5%

35.0%

35.5%

36.0%

36.5%

37.0%

37.5%

38.0%

38.5%

39.0%

39.5%

 $-

 $500,000

 $1,000,000

 $1,500,000

 $2,000,000

 $2,500,000

 $3,000,000

 $3,500,000

 $4,000,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Cheese Imports, % of Total Dairy Imports All Dairy Imports in $1,000

Million Pounds

Skim-Solids 

Basis

Fat Basis
37

Overall, the long-run trend of declining consumption of fluid milk is continuing, while per capita 

consumption of other dairy products has been growing. Given this setting, the analysis must 

address whether consumers responded to the demand-enhancing expenditures associated with 

dairy promotion programs. Structural economic models were developed to isolate the sensitivity 

of consumers to the demand-enhancing expenditures from the effects of fundamental economic 

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

Findings on Impacts of Demand-Enhancing Expenditures for Dairy Products

This evaluation study indicates a significant positive association between promotion program 

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

aggregate and for fluid milk, cheese, butter, and the activities of the National Programs 

individually. The impact is modest during the quarter in which expenditures are made, while the 

cumulative impact is measurably larger over time. 

The key indicator of the impact of marketing and promotion expenditures is a measure of the 

relative sensitivity of consumer demand to demand-enhancing expenditures. This measure, also 

known as elasticity, is defined as the percentage change in consumption given a 1-percent 

change in demand-enhancing expenditures, while holding all other variables constant. 

This analysis centers attention on the retail level of the marketing chain, and the economic model 

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

studies in the literature on evaluation of generic commodity promotion. This analysis allows the 

promotion elasticities to vary over time, with variation in expenditures. Some of the key 

findings of the economic analysis are as follows: 

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

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

commercial disappearance plus imports.)

• The dairy markets were more responsive to demand-enhancing expenditures in 

comparison to last year. 

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

cumulative impact of promotion was also identified. It was found that demand-enhancing 

expenditures affect the market for cheese for up to 6 quarters. The lagged effect on fluid milk 

was over 8 quarters, and for butter, the lagged effect was over 11 quarters. For the aggregate of 

all dairy products, the lagged effect persisted for 9 quarters on a fat basis and for 12 quarters on a 

skim-solids basis.

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

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

two different measures of dairy exports: (1) the measure of dairy exports on milk-equivalent 

skim-solids basis (SSB) supplied by USDA; and (2) the measure of dairy exports on a milk-
38

equivalent fat basis (FB) supplied by USDA. Simply put, when U.S. prices are low (high) 

relative to Oceania export prices, more (less) is exported.2

The lag length for export promotion expenditures on a SSB was estimated to be 9 quarters. The 

export promotion expenditure elasticity was calculated to be 0.061 in the sample period, 

indicative of a statistically significant effect of promotion. 

The lag length for the export promotion expenditures on a milk-fat basis was estimated to be 6 

quarters. The export promotion expenditure elasticity was calculated to be 0.083, indicative once 

again of a statistically significant effect of promotion. 

Estimation of Consumption Changes Attributed to Promotion Program Expenditures

The primary objective of the analysis provided in this section is to answer the key question 

regarding the National Programs over time: what have been the effects of dairy promotion 

programs on the domestic consumption of fluid milk, dairy products, and exports? In answering 

the key question, the focus is on the effects of the dairy promotion program on the U.S. demand 

and exports of fluid milk and dairy products. Once these market effects have been determined, a 

benefit-cost analysis of the dairy program at the producer level and at the fluid milk processor 

level can be done. In the analysis, the producer BCR of the dairy promotion program is 

calculated as the additional net producer revenues (profit) generated by the promotion program

Table 3-2. Estimates of the Sensitivity of Demand to Promotion, Prices, and Income, 1995 to 

2015

Promotion 

Elasticity

1995 to 2015

Promotion 

Elasticity

2015 only

Own-Price 

Elasticity

Income 

Elasticity

Butter1 0.062 0.076 -0.243 0.526

Cheese1 0.041 0.030 -0.133 0.215

Fluid milk1 0.073 0.061 -0.044 -0.205

All dairy1

 Skim-solids basis 0.056 0.060 -0.088 0.168

 Fat basis 0.026 0.027 -0.024 0.269

Exports1

 Skim-solids basis 0.061 0.061 -0.281 0.666

 Fat basis 0.083 0.083 -0.276 0.790

1

Over the time period 1995.1 to 2015.4.

divided by the cost of the promotion programs. By using profit over costs, a more complete and 

realistic BCR is calculated for producers. The fluid milk processor BCR is calculated similarly 

 2 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 (SMP) to the U.S. nonfat dry milk (NDM) 

price on a skim-solids basis; lags of the measure of world income calculated as the trade weighted, real gross 

domestic products of major importing countries; and inertia or stickiness of dairy exports in world markets.
39

to the producers; the cost of milk is used as a proxy for the cost of production since data for fluid 

milk processors’ cost of production are not available. 

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

example, a BCR from a 1-dollar investment that returns 5 dollars is the same (5 to 1) as the BCR 

for a 1 billion dollar investment that returns 5 billion dollars. Obviously the more that is spent, 

the larger the impact on the commodity program. As spending increases, however, each 

additional dollar spent has a declining effect, so that the total additional revenue achieved 

increases at a declining rate. Thus, the ratio between additional revenue and additional funding 

(the BCR) declines as funding increases. Further, a lower BCR during one time period than 

another or for one commodity than another, does not mean the program is less effective in one 

time period than another or for one commodity than another. It is often the case that other 

metrics, such as impacts on consumption and exports, are much more revealing and useful.

The analysis covers the period of 1995 to 2015 and also decomposes the results for comparison 

purposes into four similar time periods: (1) 1995-1999, (2) 2000-2004, (3) 2005-2009, and (4) 

2010-2015.

This analysis is partially accomplished by aligning the annual model of the U.S. dairy industry, 

the Agricultural Markets and Policy Group Dairy Model (AMAP Dairy Model), maintained at 

the University of Missouri, with the observed data over the 1995 to 2015 period. The impact of 

promotion is obtained by removing demand-enhancing expenditures from the system. There is a 

simulated “demand-enhancement” scenario representing the actual history, contrasted with a 

simulated “no demand-enhancement” scenario (the counterfactual) to reflect the levels of prices 

and quantities expected in the absence of the National Programs. 

This analysis uses the AMAP Dairy Model, as modified to account for dairy promotion, to 

answer the question posed above regarding the effects of dairy promotion on U.S. dairy markets 

and exports. For this analysis, the AMAP structural dairy model was simulated over the 1995 to 

2015 period to identify how dairy markets would have functioned in the absence of promotion. 

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

scenarios are presented in Table 3.

Table 3-3 provides a comparison of the “promotion” levels of each variable (actual historical 

data) to the “no promotion” levels (simulated levels without promotion) to show the effects 

across time from dairy promotion spending. There are many factors at play in the year-by-year 

results, including the level of promotion expenditures each year and the supply dynamics built 

into the AMAP structural dairy model. In order to provide some insight into these model 

dynamics, Table 3 shows four sub periods of results as well as the entire period for selected 

endogenous variables. This analysis starts in 1995 and ignores any promotion effects that would 

have occurred prior to 1995. 

Because no other exogenous variable in the model (e.g., levels of inflation, exchange rates, 

income levels, government policies, etc.), other than dairy promotion expenditures, is allowed to 

change in either scenario, this process effectively isolates the effects of the National Programs on 
40

U.S. dairy markets and exports. That is, the simulated differences between the values of the 

endogenous variables from the “promotion” scenario and those from the “no promotion” 

scenario, in which those expenditures are set to zero, provide direct measures of the historical 

effects of the dairy promotion expenditures (and only those expenditures) on U.S. dairy markets 

and exports.

Over the period 1995 to 2015, per capita consumption of fluid milk, cheese, and butter rose by 

8.1 percent, 5.7 percent, and 5.7 percent respectively due to promotion efforts, all other factors 

held constant. The overall downward trend of per capita fluid milk consumption is mitigated as 

a result of the National Programs. If promotion did not exist, then fluid milk consumption would 

have been 189.43 pounds per capita annually instead of 204.79 pounds per capita annually over 

the 1995-2015 period. Hence, the National Programs’ spending on fluid milk reduced the rate of 

decline. Per capita consumption of nonfat dry milk would have been 3.20 pounds per capita 

annually without promotion versus 3.22 pounds per capita with promotion over the 1995 to 2015 

period. Annually, per capita consumption of cheese would have been 29.28 pounds per capita 

without promotion versus 30.95 pounds per capita with promotion over the 1995 to 2015 period, 

while butter was 4.78 with promotion versus 4.53 pounds per capita without promotion.

In the 2000 to 2004 period, there were several factors at play in the dairy product markets that 

provide different results depending on the dairy product in question. First, during this period 

cheese and fluid milk received the largest portion of dairy promotion dollars. For these two 

products, consumption remained higher as a result of promotion. Butter promotion was modest 

over this particular period and increased consumption by 4.7 percent 

In the period 2005 to 2009, a return to stronger butter promotional spending in 2004, following 

relatively low levels from 1998 to 2003, resulted in increased per capita consumption by 0.27 

pounds when comparing the no-promotion to promotion levels. In the previous period (2000-

2004), the per capita consumption only increased by 0.20 pounds when comparing the nopromotion to promotion levels. 

Promotional spending in nominal terms on all dairy products increased in 2010 through 2015 to a 

level not seen previously, leading to increases of cheese and butter consumption. Actual cheese 

consumption in this period was up 1.10 pounds per capita from the 2005-2009 period. Actual 

butter consumption was up 0.6 pounds per capita from the 2005-2009 period.

Looking at import assessment impacts, cheese is the focus of the analysis since cheese occupies 

about one-third of total imported dairy products and also has adequate data to conduct a thorough 

analysis. Due to promotion funds collected from importers, imported cheese levels were higher 

by roughly 1.5 million pounds. Further, unit values of cheese imports amounted to roughly 

$3.34 per pound on average over the period 2011 to 2015. Hence, incremental revenue to 

importers solely from cheese attributed to the import assessment totaled $5.0 million. 
41

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

Response

Fluid Milk Per 

Capita 

Consumption

Cheese Per 

Capita 

Consumption

Butter Per 

Capita 

Consumption

Nonfat Dry 

Milk Per 

Capita 

Consumption

(pounds)

Period

1995 - 1999

With 

Promotion 215.46 27.69 4.38 3.30

No Promotion 194.71 26.41 4.19 3.40

Change 20.75 1.27 0.19 -0.10

Percent 

Change 10.7% 4.8% 4.4% -2.9%

2000 - 2004

With 

Promotion 206.51 30.49 4.48 3.33

No Promotion 188.43 29.05 4.28 3.40

Change 18.07 1.45 0.20 -0.07

Percent 

Change 9.6% 5.0% 4.7% -2.2%

2005 - 2009

With 

Promotion 202.95 32.4 4.81 3.30

No Promotion 187.09 31.07 4.54 3.34

Change 15.87 1.33 0.27 -0.05

Percent 

Change 8.5% 4.3% 6.0% -1.5%

2010 - 2015

With 

Promotion 192.26 33.5 5.41 2.94

No Promotion 179.28 31.75 5.07 2.93

Change 12.98 1.75 0.34 0.01

Percent 

Change 7.2% 5.5% 6.8% 0.4%

1995 - 2015

With 

Promotion 204.79 30.95 4.78 3.20

No Promotion 189.43 29.28 4.53 3.22

Change 15.37 1.67 0.26 -0.02

Percent 

Change 8.1% 5.7% 5.7% -0.7%

Source: Calculation by the authors.
42

Benefit-Cost Ratios 

Based on a comparative analysis of the “promotion” and “no-promotion” scenarios as 

summarized in the previous section and illustrated in Table 3-4, the answer to the key question

posed earlier regarding the National Programs, as it relates to the analyzed products, is that it has 

effectively increased the demand of promoted dairy products.

This section provides a benefit-cost analysis of the National Programs based on the results of the 

scenario analyses discussed in the previous section. As calculated, the producer profit BCR is the 

additional industry profits (additional cash receipts net of additional production costs and 

promotion assessments) earned by producers as a consequence of the promotion expenditures (as 

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

expenditures made to generate those additional profits. 

Over the period 1995 to 2015, the gains in profit at the producer level were far larger than the 

expenditures on demand-enhancement programs. The BCRs for producers for fluid milk were 

calculated to be $2.99 for every dollar invested in demand-enhancing activities; for cheese $7.72 

for every dollar invested; and for butter $32.06 for every dollar invested. Dairy export 

promotion expenditures have increased the foreign demand for U.S. dairy products by $5.59 for 

every dollar invested. For an aggregate of all dairy products, the net profit BCR is

approximately $4.97 for every dollar spent. 

The fluid milk processor BCR cannot be calculated as completely as the producer BCR since the 

cost-of-production data are not available. To calculate the fluid milk BCR, the milk cost is used 

as a proxy for cost-of-production since milk would be the largest input cost. Over the period 

1995 to 2015, the gains in profit at the fluid milk processor level were far larger than the 

expenditures on demand-enhancement programs. The BCRs for fluid milk were calculated to be 

$3.79 for every dollar invested in demand-enhancing activities for fluid milk processors (Table 

3-5).

Table 3-4. Calculated Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCRs), in Net Profit at the Producer Level Attributed 

to the National Programs, 1995 to 2015

Producers

Product BCR

All Dairy 4.97

Fluid milk 2.99

Cheese 7.72

Butter 32.06

Exports 5.59

Source: Calculations by the authors.
43

Table 3-5: Calculated Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCRs), in Net Profit at the Fluid Milk Processor 

Level Attributed to Fluid Milk Promotion Program, 1995 to 2015

Fluid Milk Processors

Product BCR

Fluid Milk 3.79

 Source: Calculations by the authors.

Concluding Remarks 

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

covering the period 1995-2015. The key findings regarding markets for milk and manufactured 

dairy products include:

• The National Programs have effectively increased the demand of promoted dairy 

products, especially for cheese and butter, while lessening the decline in per capita fluid 

milk consumption. The gains in profit at the producer and fluid milk processer level were 

far larger than the costs of the National Programs. 

• The overall BCR (using profit over costs) of the dairy producer promotion program was 

calculated to be 4.97; that is for every $1 spent on demand-enhancing activities dairy 

producers received an additional $4.97.

• The BCRs for producers for fluid milk were calculated to be $2.99 for every dollar 

invested in demand-enhancing activities; for cheese, $7.72 for every dollar invested; and 

for butter, $32.06 for every dollar invested. The BCR of export promotion was $5.59 per 

dollar invested. 

• The United States imported between $2.5 billion and $4.7 billion in dairy products in 

each of the last 5 years. Cheese products accounted for slightly more than one-third, by 

value, of the dairy imports. Import assessment funds totaled between $3.41 million and 

$4.17 million dollars per year during 2012 to 2015. The import assessment has amounted 

to about 1.0 percent of the total demand-enhancing expenditures by DMI and the QPs.

• Due to promotion funds collected from importers, imported cheese levels were higher by 

roughly 1.0 million pounds to 1.5 million pounds. Unit values of cheese imports 

amounted to roughly $3.42 per pound on average over the period 2011 to 2014. Hence, 

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

totaled roughly $3.4 million to $5.3 million. 
44

• The BCR for fluid milk processors attributed to the Fluid Milk Promotion Program was 

calculated to be $3.79.

• With regard to methodology, the structural econometric models that are presented in this 

report are statistically valid and largely consistent with prior studies evaluating generic 

commodity promotion. The simulation analysis was accomplished by aligning the annual 

AMAP Dairy Model with the observed data over the 1995 to 2015 period. The baseline 

period is 1995 to 2015, and the impact of promotion was obtained by removing demandenhancing expenditures from the system (the counterfactual).3

 3 A reference list is available upon request.
45

Chapter 4

Qualified State, Regional, or Importer

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 or dairy importers; 

(4) not use a private brand or trade name in its advertising and promotion of dairy products 

(unless approved by the Dairy Board and USDA); and (5) not use program funds for the purpose 

of influencing governmental policy or action (7 CFR §1150.153). 

The aggregate revenue from the assessment directed to the Qualified Programs in 2015 was $213

million (approximately 10 cents of the 15-cent producer assessment and 2.5 cents of the importer 

7.5-cent assessment). This chapter provides the aggregate income and expenditure data of the 

Qualified Programs as well as a list of certified programs in 2015. 

Some Qualified Programs participate in cooperative efforts conducted and coordinated by other 

Qualified Programs and/or other organizations such as DMI, the Dairy Board, and UDIA. Their 

goal in combining funding and coordinating projects is for more effective and efficient 

management of promotion dollars through larger, broad-based projects. For example, to support 

the unified marketing plan, UDIA coordinates the programs and resources of 19 federation 

members and their affiliated units nationally through DMI.
46

2015 Qualified State, Regional, or Importer Dairy Product Promotion, 

Research, or Nutrition Education Programs

Aggregate Income and Expenditure Data Reported to USDA

(Thousands)

Aggregate Income FY 2015

Carryover From Previous Year 1 $79,971

Producer Remittances 208,665

Transfers From Other Qualified Programs 2 66,025

Transfers to Other Qualified Programs (62,519)

Other Income 11,902

Total Adjusted Annual Income $304,043 

Aggregate Expenditures FY 2015

General and Administrative $10,867

 Milk Advertising and Promotion 12,794

 Cheese Advertising and Promotion 32,089

 Butter Advertising and Promotion 7,670

 Frozen Dairy Products Advertising and Promotion 4,199

 Other Advertising and Promotion 3 8,682

Unified Marketing Plan 4 96,373

Dairy Foods and Nutrition Research 9,203

Public and Industry Communications 14,245

Nutrition Education 16,706

Market and Economic Research 2,685

Other 4,148

Total Annual Expenditures $219,660

Total Available for Future Year Programs $81,252

1 Differences can occur because of audit adjustments and varying accounting periods. 2 Payments transferred between Qualified Programs differ due to different accounting methods and accounting 

periods.

3 Other includes “Real Seal,” holiday, multi-product, calcium, foodservice, product donation at State fairs, and other 

promotional activities.

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.

Source: Data reported by qualified dairy product promotion, research, and nutrition education programs
47

2015 Qualified State, Regional, or Importer

Dairy Product Promotion, Research, or Nutrition Education Programs 

ALABAMA:

American Dairy Association of Alabama, Inc. 

C/o SUDIA 

5340 West Fayetteville Road

Atlanta, GA 30349-5416 

ARIZONA:

Dairy Council of Arizona 

510 South 52nd Street, Suite 101 

Tempe, AZ 85282-1211 

 

CALIFORNIA: 

California Milk Advisory Board 

2316 Orchard Parkway, Suite 200

Tracy, CA 95377

California Manufacturers Milk Producers Advisory 

Board 

3800 Cornucopia Way, Suite D

Modesto, CA 95358-9492

Dairy Council of California

1418 North Market Boulevard, Suite 500

Sacramento, CA 95834-1945

COLORADO:

Western Dairy Association

12000 N. Washington Street, Suite 175

Thornton, CO 80241

CONNECTICUT:

Connecticut Milk Promotion Board 

C/o Connecticut Department of Agriculture

165 Capitol Avenue

Hartford, CT 06106 

FLORIDA: 

Florida Dairy Farmers

1003 Orienta Avenue

Altamonte Springs, FL 32701 

GEORGIA: 

Georgia Agricultural Commodity Commission for 

Milk C/o Georgia Department of Agriculture

19 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, SW, Room 328

Atlanta, GA 30334 

GEORGIA Continued: 

Southeast United Dairy Industry Association, Inc. 

(SUDIA)

5340 West Fayetteville Road

Atlanta, GA 30349-5416

American Dairy Association of Georgia, Inc. 

C/o SUDIA

5340 West Fayetteville Road

Atlanta, GA 30349-5416

Dairy Food Nutrition Council 

C/o SUDIA

5340 West Fayetteville Road

Atlanta, GA 30349-5416

IDAHO:

Idaho Dairy Products Commission 

743 North Touchmark Avenue

Meridian, ID 83642 

ILLINOIS: 

Illinois Milk Promotion Board

1701 Towanda Avenue

Bloomington, IL 61701

INDIANA: 

American Dairy Association of Indiana, Inc.

(Milk Promotion Services of Indiana)

9360 Castlegate Drive

Indianapolis, IN 46256

Indiana Dairy Industry Development Board

9360 Castlegate Drive

Indianapolis, IN 46256 

KANSAS: 

Kansas Dairy Commission 

(Inactive)

P.O. Box 1530

Hays, KS 67601
48

KENTUCKY:

American Dairy Association of Kentucky, Inc. 

C/o SUDIA 

5340 West Fayetteville Road

Atlanta, GA 30349-5416 

LOUISIANA:

Louisiana Dairy Industry Board

C/o Louisiana Department of Agriculture and

Forestry

47076 North Morrison Boulevard

Hammond, LA 70401

MAINE: 

Maine Dairy and Nutrition Council

333 Cony Road

Augusta, ME 04330 

Maine Dairy Promotion Board

333 Cony Road

Augusta, ME 04330

MASSACHUSETTS: 

Massachusetts Dairy Promotion Board

251 Causeway Street, Suite 500

Boston, MA 02114 

New England Dairy and Food Council, Inc. 

1034 Commonwealth Avenue

Boston, MA 02215

New England Dairy Promotion Board 

1034 Commonwealth Avenue

Boston, MA 02215 

MICHIGAN: 

American Dairy Association of Michigan

2163 Jolly Road

Okemos, MI 48864 

Dairy Council of Michigan, Inc. 

2163 Jolly Road

Okemos, MI 48864 

Michigan Dairy Market Program 

41310 Bridge Street

Novi, MI 48376-8002 

MINNESOTA:

Midwest Dairy Association 

2015 Rice Street

St. Paul, MN 55113

MINNESOTA Continued: 

Midwest Dairy Council 

2015 Rice Street

St. Paul, MN 55113

Minnesota Dairy Research and Promotion Council

C/o Midwest Dairy Association

2015 Rice Street

St. Paul, MN 55113 

MISSISSIPPI:

American Dairy Association of Mississippi, Inc.

C/o SUDIA 

5340 West Fayetteville Road

Atlanta, GA 30349-5416

MISSOURI: 

Dairy Promotion, Inc. 

10220 NW Ambassador Drive

Kansas City, MO 64190-9700

Promotion Services, Inc.

10220 NW Ambassador Drive

Kansas City, MO 64190-9700

St. Louis District Dairy Council 

325 North Kirkwood Road, Suite 222

St. Louis, MO 63122

NEBRASKA:

Nebraska Dairy Industry Development Board 

C/o Midwest Dairy Association

2015 Rice Street

St. Paul, MN 55113

NEVADA:

Nevada Farm Bureau Dairy Producers Committee

2165 Green Vista Drive, Suite 205

Sparks, NV 89431 

NEW HAMPSHIRE:

Granite State Dairy Promotion 

C/o New Hampshire Department of Agriculture

25 Capitol Street, Box 2042

Concord, NH 03302-2042 

NEW JERSEY:

New Jersey Dairy Industry Advisory Council 

C/o New Jersey Department of Agriculture

P.O. Box 330

Trenton, NJ 08625-0330 
49

NEW YORK: 

American Dairy Association and Dairy Council, Inc. 

100 Elwood Davis Road

North Syracuse, NY 13212 

Milk for Health on the Niagara Frontier, Inc.

4185 Seneca Street

West Seneca, NY 14224 

New York State Department of Agriculture

Division of Milk Control and Dairy Services 

10 B Airline Drive

Albany, NY 12235-0001 

NEW YORK continued: 

Rochester Health Foundation, Inc. 

C/o American Dairy Association 

 and Dairy Council, Inc. 

100 Elwood Davis Road

North Syracuse, NY 13212 

NORTH CAROLINA:

American Dairy Association of North Carolina, Inc.

C/o SUDIA 

5340 West Fayetteville Road

Atlanta, GA 30349-5416 

NORTH DAKOTA: 

North Dakota Dairy Promotion Commission 

C/o Midwest Dairy Association 

2015 Rice Street

St. Paul, MN 55113

OHIO: 

American Dairy Association Mideast

5950 Sharon Woods Boulevard

Columbus, OH 43229

OREGON:

Oregon Dairy Products Commission

10505 SW Barbur Boulevard

Portland, OR 97219 

PENNSYLVANIA: 

Allied Milk Producers' Cooperative, Inc. 

1360 Eisenhower Boulevard

Johnstown, PA 15904-3307 

Mid-Atlantic Dairy Association

325 Chestnut Street, Suite 600

Philadelphia, PA 19106 

PENNSYLVANIA Continued: 

Pennsylvania Dairy Promotion Program 

C/o Mid Atlantic Dairy Association

325 Chestnut Street, Suite 600

Philadelphia, PA 19106

PUERTO RICO, COMMONWEALTH OF: 

Milk Industry Development Fund of Puerto Rico

PO Box 360454

San Juan, Puerto Rico 00936-0454

SOUTH CAROLINA:

American Dairy Association of South Carolina 

C/o SUDIA 

5340 West Fayetteville Road

Atlanta, GA 30349-5416

SOUTH DAKOTA: 

American Dairy Association of South Dakota 

C/o Midwest Dairy Association

2015 Rice Street

St. Paul, MN 55113

TENNESSEE:

American Dairy Association of Tennessee, Inc.

C/o SUDIA 

5340 West Fayetteville Road

Atlanta, GA 30349-5416 

Tennessee Dairy Promotion Committee

C/o SUDIA

5340 West Fayetteville Road

Atlanta, GA 30349-5416

TEXAS:

Dairy MAX, Inc.

2214 Paddock Way Drive, Suite 600

Grand Prairie, TX 75050 

Southwest Dairy Museum, Inc. 

P.O. Box 936 

Sulphur Springs, TX 75483 

UTAH:

Dairy Council of Utah and Nevada

543 Midlake Drive

Draper, UT 84020 

VERMONT:

Vermont Dairy Promotion Council 

C/o Agency of Agriculture, Foods and Markets 

116 State Street, Drawer 20

Montpelier, VT 05620-2901
50

VIRGINIA: 

American Dairy Association of Virginia, Inc. 

C/o SUDIA

5340 West Fayetteville Road

Atlanta, GA 30349-5416

WASHINGTON: 

Washington State Dairy Council

4201 198th Street SW

 

WISCONSIN: 

Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board, Inc.

8418 Excelsior Drive

Madison, WI 53717 

QUALIFIED IMPORTER PROGRAMS:

Cheese Importers Association of America (Importer)

204 E Street, NE

Washington, DC 20002 

Global Dairy Platform (Importer)

10255 West Higgins, Suite 800

Rosemont, IL 60018

Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board, Inc. (Importer) 

8418 Excelsior Drive

Madison, WI 53717 

Washington Dairy Products Commission

4201 198th Street SW

Lynnwood, WA 98036-6751

 
51

National Dairy Promotion and Research Board, 

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

2015 Contracts Approved by USDA

ADVERTISING AND MARKETING SERVICES

American Butter Institute Go Bold with Butter Campaign

American Dairy Association Indiana, Inc. Unified Marketing Plan

Brand Crushin’ Maryland and Virginia Cooperative agreements

Dairy Council of Utah/Nevada Mountain West Dairy Promotion

Domino’s Pizza LLC Business Development and Co-Promotion

Edelman Public Relations Worldwide Fuel Up to Play 60; strategic consulting

Florida Dairy Farmers Unified Marketing Plan

gravitytank Fuel Up to Play 60

Information Resources, Inc. Milk Analysis

Maryland and Virginia Milk Producers Strategic collaboration

McDonald’s Business Development and Co-Promotion

NDP Group, Inc. Consumer surveys

New England Dairy and Food Council Unified Marketing Plan

Pizza Hut Cheese Promotion Partnership

Queue Marketing Communications Group DFA Live Real Farms Test

Raymond, Carl Cookbook

Robles, Sylvia Southeast Milk relationship management

Ruby-Do, Inc. Integrated Communications

Sheryl Stern Sachman & Associates LLC Exhibit Planning and Execution

Southeast Milk, Inc. Unified Marketing Plan

SRW Marketing Breakfast Lab activation services

SUDIA Unified Marketing Plan

Taco Bell Corporation Business development and marketing agreement

The Economist Intelligence Unit, NA, Inc. Event Sponsorship

COMMUNICATIONS, NUTRITION EDUCATION AND PUBLIC RELATIONS

84.51°LLC Product Testing

American Academy of Pediatrics Partnership Agreement

American Dairy Ventures Strategic Partnership agreement

Amidor, Toby National Dairy Council Ambassador Program 

ASK-Comm Strategies, LLC Farm Smart Communications Support

Bader Rutter & Associates, Inc. Sustainability awards program

Baxter Communications, Inc. Audio and visual production services

Bonci, Leslie National Dairy Council Ambassador Program

C.P. Fileti Associates, Inc. National Dairy Council Ambassador Program

College & Professional Sports Dieticians Sponsorship agreement

Duyff, Roberta National Dairy Council Ambassador Program

Farmer’s Daughter Consulting National Dairy Council Ambassador Program

Fleishman-Hillard Inc. FMD Cross Species Communications

Fair Oaks Adventure Mobile classroom funding

FoodMinds LLC Nutrition Guidance services
52

Foodsense, LLC Consulting agreement

Goodson, Amy National Dairy Council Ambassador Program

Grainger, Holley National Dairy Council Ambassador Program

Harris, Keecha National Dairy Council Ambassador Program

Health & Nutrition Network Strategic planning and communication

Heinrich Marketing Research Milk packaging concept study

Helen Anderson Inc. Organizational development consulting

Hillstrom Communications, Inc. Communication services

Innova Market Insights Food & Beverage Industry Database access

Kelton Research, LLC Fluid Milk opportunities study

LaBarbera, Maggie National Dairy Council Ambassador Program

Larson, Steve Consulting Services

Letiwin, Nicole National Dairy Council Scientific Affairs services

Marketing Concepts, Inc. Food safety initiatives and research

MMS Education Inc. Fuel Up to Play 60

Miller, Heather Eicher National Dairy Council Ambassador Program

National Dairy Shrine Scholarship program sponsorship

National Football League Players Incorporated Fuel Up to Play 60

National Football League Properties Fuel Up to Play 60

National Institutes of Health Project Development

Nichols, Gail Marketplace fluid milk innovation services

Nutrition Impact Strategic consulting

Nutrition Insights LLC Regulatory services

Nutritional Strategies Inc. Nutrition consulting

Rempfer Consulting, Inc. Menu development consulting

School Nutrition Association School Nutrition Awareness Initiative

The Fresh Approach, Inc. Commodity roundtable

The Kroger Company Strategic collaboration agreement

The McCully Group Innovation Center strategic plan development

Upfield Group Relationship Management

Watson Green LLC Consulting and strategic coordination for NDC nutrition

Weber Shandwick Dairy industry crisis readiness program

Wellspring Insights & Innovation, Inc. Dairy “brand story” qualitative research

World Wildlife Fund, Inc. Strategic coordination agreement

Youth Improved Inc. dba GenYouth Fuel Up to Play 60 support

EXPORT AND INGREDIENTS

Agralytica Market access and regulatory affairs

Agribusiness-Connect Asia Southeast Asia Trade Servicing

American-Mexican Marketing Mexico Office Trade Servicing

Arab Marketing Finance, Inc. Middle East Office Trade Servicing

AWAT Consulting Ltd. Research study services

Bader Rutter & Associates, Inc. Global communication guidelines development

Bovina Mountain Consulting Professional services

Burris, Cameron Research data and guidance

Canadean – Kable Business Intelligence Ltd. Update of USDEC dairy ingredients forecast

Catalyst International LLC 2015 professional research services

Center for Food Safety & Regulatory Solutions International trade research
53

Consumer Dynamics Digital content marketing and technology strategy

Czerwonka, Kelly Consulting services

Datazio, LLC Tableau design services

Earthwide Business Intelligence Limited Oceania Dairy Industry Research

Esser, John Recipe consulting services

Euromonitor International Ltd. Custom dashboard report

Fabrizo & Friends Develop publications 

Feng, Meiqian Consulting services

FoodMinds LLC Whey Protein communications and research

Global Dairy Platform 2015 Funding

Global Food & Nutrition Global nutrition food aid strategy

Hotrum, Natalie Technical editing services

IDFA US Dairy Products Export guide

Interpublic Marketing Services (Shanghai) Ltd. Crisis and issues management services

IntNet Korea Trade Servicing

JDG Consulting Consulting services

Kenney, Audrey Graphic design and service

Koski, Shannon Consulting services

Lee Blakely Consulting Consulting services

Locraft, Lauren Milk Powder manuals

Market Makers, Inc. Japan Trade Servicing

Marketing Connections S.A. South America Trade Servicing

National Milk Producers Federation Global Dairy Industry research

NIZO Research and Development Consortium Methodology Development 

Novak Birch Creative and marketing support services

Nygaard Consulting LLC MARA Export Guide services

P R Consultants Limited China, Hong Kong and Vietnam Trade Servicing

Parody, Kristen Consulting services

Project Peanut Butter Consulting services

Promar International Ltd. Southeast Asia Market study

Proteus Insight South America Market study

Quadrant Nutrition LLC Scientific guidance

Quaife, Tom Editorial and technical support 

Radloff, Katherine Consulting services

RAM Production Services Audio and visual services

RB International Consulting services

Ready Ink Communications Consulting and editorial services

Research Resources Recipe consulting services

Results Direct Intranet, website, and mobile application services

Richard Fritz & Associates International Trade Rule monitoring

Rogers, Paul Membership and relations consulting services

Sandstorm Design, Inc. Publications evaluation

SC Motion and Stills Website, video, and photography services

Schonrock Consulting Research data and export guidance

SIAM Professionals, LLC Southeast Asia Market research

Sorenson, Carla Delivery of test methods and other technical materials 

Stachura, Lynn Global innovation partnership support services

Steifer, David L. Consulting services

The McCully Group Risk management strategy development

The Value Engineers, Ltd. Revamping the U.S. Dairy Seal services
54

TradeMoves LLC Export guide development

Venga Global, Inc. Arabic, Vietnamese, Chinese, and Korean Language 

microsites

Weber Shandwick China Web, social media, and issues management 

Zenith International Market research on cheese varieties

Zuber, Tristan Professional services

MARKET AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH, CONSULTING SERVICES

Almanac Systems LLC Farm Smart support tool

Australian Research Council Research project

C+R Research Services Consulting services 

Cal Poly Corporation Research project

CFE Solutions, Inc. Consulting Services

Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Research project

CliftonLarson Allen Outsourced accounting services

Concept Green, LLC Sustainability reporting services

Culinary Sales Support, Inc. Product innovation 

Dairy Insights Consulting services

Dolcera Scientific article development services

Dutch Dairy Funding Agreement Support agreement

Irish Design Sustainability reporting services

Joslin Diabetes Center, Inc. Nutrition research

K. COE Isom, LLP Sustainability Framework development

Keenan, Judy Health and Wellness consulting services

KEO consulting Animal health and wellbeing services

LPK Brands, Inc. DFA packaging consumer research

MBL Marketing Consulting, LLC Strategic counsel services

Morgan Marzec Strategic consulting services

National Milk Producers Federation Animal health and wellbeing services

NTT Data, Inc. IT services

Palacios, Orsolya Materials development and consulting services

Patel, Hasmukh Whole milk powder technical monolith

Peryam & Kroll Research Corporation Qualitative research and concept testing

Pollock Communications Consulting services

Salo, LLC Document and routing systems

Strategic Conservation Solutions Strategic consulting services

Technomic, Inc. Foodservice industry intelligence resources

The Kroger Company Dairy Sustainability scientist

The Prasino Group, LLC Dairy resource recovery research

Vennli, Inc. Communication services

Wescott Strategic Communications LLC Consulting services
55

National Dairy Foods Research Centers

CALIFORNIA DAIRY RESEARCH CENTER

The California Dairy Foods Research Center, located at the Dairy Products Technology Center 

at California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, supports the dairy industry from 

farm to table. Working with the California Dairy Research Foundation and the University of 

California-Davis, 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. 

California Polytechnic State University 

-San Luis Obispo 

A. Charles Crabb, Ph.D. 

Dairy Products Technology Center

San Luis Obispo, CA 93407

California Dairy Research Foundation

Gonca Pasin, Ph.D.

501 G Street, Suite 203

Davis, CA 95616

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. 

South Dakota State University

Lloyd Metzger, Ph.D.

Midwest Dairy Foods Research Center, 

Box: 2104

Brookings, SD 57007

University of Minnesota-St. Paul

Peggy Lehtola

Midwest Dairy Foods Research Center, 

1334 Eckles Avenue

St. Paul, MN 55108

Iowa State University - Ames

Stephanie Clark

Midwest Dairy Foods Research Center, 

2312 Food Sciences Building

Ames, IA 50011

NORTHEAST DAIRY FOODS RESEARCH CENTER

The Northeast Dairy Foods Research Center located at Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, was

formed to conduct fluid milk and dairy ingredient research; 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. 
56

Cornell University

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

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. 

Mississippi State University

Sam Chang, Ph.D.

Food Science, Nutrition and Health Promotion

240 Wise Center Drive

Starkville, MS, 39762

North Carolina State University 

Todd Klaenhammer, Ph.D., Director

Southeast Dairy Foods Research Center

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 and University of Idaho. 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: http://www.usu.edu/westcent/.

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, UT 84322-8700
57

WISCONSIN

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.

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research

John Lucey, Ph.D., Director

Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research 

1605 Linden Drive

Madison, WI 53706-1565
58

Dairy Foods Competitive Product Research Projects Active in 2015

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, INSTITUTION, PROJECT TITLE AND STATUS

Jayendra K. Amamcharla, Ph.D. (Kansas State University): Use of Nano-scale Aqueous Ozone to 

Remove Biofilms from Selected Dairy Product Contact Surfaces [ongoing 2015]; Use of Micro 

and Nano Bubbles in Dairy Processing Applications [initiated 2015].

Jayendra K. Amamcharla, Ph.D. (Kansas State University) and Lloyd Metzger, Ph.D. (South 

Dakota State University): Understanding the Effects of Electromagnetic Fluid Conditioning on 

Physical, Chemica,l and Functional Properties of Milk and Dairy Products [ongoing 2015]. 

Jayendra K. Amamcharla, Ph.D. (Kansas State University), Sanjeev Anand, Ph.D. (South Dakota 

State University), Lloyd Metzger, Ph.D. (South Dakota State University), and Julie M. Goddard, 

Ph.D. (University of Massachusetts Amherst): Use of Novel Surface Modification Techniques to 

Reduce Biofilms on Plate Heat Exchanger Plates [ongoing 2015].

Sanjeev Anand, Ph.D. (South Dakota State University): Improve the Microbial Quality of Milk 

Powders by Controlling Thermally Resistant Spore Formers and Spores [ongoing 2015]; 

Understanding the Process of Spore Germination or Sporulation, and Biofilm Formation Under 

Simulated Skim Milk Powder Manufacturing Conditions [initiated 2015]; Evaluation of 

Adherence Ability and Biofilm Formation of HHRS to Modified Stainless Steel Surfaces [initiated 

2015].

David M. Barbano, Ph.D. (Cornell University) and MaryAnne Drake, Ph.D. (North Carolina 

State University): The Role of Protein, Protein Ratio and Fat Content on Consumer Acceptance

[ongoing 2015]; The Role of Milk Heat Treatment and Fat Content on Consumer Acceptability

[ongoing 2015]; The Role of Vitamin Premix on Flavor and Flavor Stability of Fluid Milk

[initiated 2015].

Andreia Bianchini, Ph.D. (University of Nebraska): Application of Interventions at Farm Level 

to Reduce Sporeformer Bacteria [initiated 2015].

Stephanie Clark, Ph.D. (Iowa State University): Feasibility of Integrating Ultrasound into High 

Temperature Short Time Processing for Extended Shelf Life Milk [concluded 2015].

Dennis D’Amico, Ph.D. (University of Connecticut): Utilization of GRAS Compounds as 

Antimicrobial Dip and Coating Treatments for Controlling Listeria Monocytogenes on High 

Moisture Cheese [ongoing 2015].

MaryAnne Drake, Ph.D. (North Carolina State University): Southeast Dairy Center Application 

Laboratory Program [ongoing 2015]; Consumer Evaluation of Milks with Different Packaging 

and Light Exposure [Initiated 2015]; Hydrolysis of Milk Powder Permeate and/or Milk for no 

Sugar Added Flavored Milk [completed 2015]; The Influence of Processing Parameters on SMP 

Quality [ongoing 2015]. 
59

MaryAnne Drake, Ph.D. (North Carolina State University) and Lloyd Metzger, Ph.D. (South 

Dakota State University): Exploring Consumer Perception of Permeate-Based Sodium Reduction 

with Different Permeate Sources [ongoing 2015].

Susan E. Duncan, Ph.D., (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University): Milk Packaging 

Options for Light Protection of Milk Flavor From Processing Through Retail Purchase [ongoing 

2015].

Allen E. Foegeding, Ph.D. (North Carolina State University): The Effects of Whey Proteins and 

Cocoa Polyphenols on Postprandial Fullness, Blood Glucose, and Satiety Hormone Levels in a 

Human Clinical Trial [concluded 2015].

Kathleen Glass, Ph.D. (University of Wisconsin-Madison/Center for Dairy Research): Inhibition 

of Clostridium Botulinum in Reduced-Sodium Pasteurized Cheese Products [ongoing 2015]; 

Control of Listeria Monocytogenes in High-Moisture Cheese [initiated 2015].

Lisbeth Goddik, Ph.D. (Oregon State University): Impact of Milk Hauling and Receiving on 

Microbial Content in Raw Milk [ongoing 2015].

Selvarani Govindasamy-Lucey, Ph.D. (University of Wisconsin-Madison/Center for Dairy 

Research): Increasing the Shelf-Life of Export Cheeses by Prolonged Low Temperature Storage 

[ongoing 2015]; Shelf-life Extension of Cream Cheeses for Export [ongoing 2015]; Controlling 

Cheese Acidity by Adjustment of the Lactose to Protein Content of Cheesemilk [initiated 2015].

Frederico M. Harte, Ph.D. (Pennsylvania State University): Effect of Salts on Casein Micelle

[initiated 2015].

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

Center for Dairy Research Applications Laboratory [ongoing 2015]; Next Generation Valueadded Milk Protein Ingredients to Meet Growing International Demand for Clinical Foods

[initiated 2015]; Complimentary Calcium Fractionation Techniques to Increase Co-Product 

Colids Utilization and Value [initiated 2015]; Designing Novel Cheese with High Levels of Intact 

Casein [initiated 2015].

Donald McMahon, Ph.D. (Utah State University): Western Dairy Center Technology Innovation 

Laboratory Program [ongoing 2015].

Lloyd Metzger, Ph.D. (South Dakota State University): Development of Modified Milk Protein 

Concentrates as an Alternative to Rennet Casein [ongoing 2015]; Midwest Dairy Foods 

Applications Laboratories Program [ongoing 2015]; Improve Technology to Manufacture 

Lactose and Dry Acid Whey [initiated 2015].

NIZO Food Research B.V. (Netherlands): Reduction of Spore Count in Milk Powder Production 

[ongoing 2015].
60

Hasmukh Patel, Ph.D., Lloyd Metzger, Ph.D. (South Dakota State University) and Cordelia 

Selomulya, Ph.D. (Monash University (Australia)): To Improve the Quality of Milk Powder by 

Developing Strategies to Minimize the Increase in Viscosity of Milk Concentrate with High Total 

Solids Milk [concluded 2015]; Single Droplet Drying Technology for Optimization of Dairy 

Ingredients for Best Quality and Functionality [ongoing 2015].

Hasmukh Patel, Ph.D. (South Dakota State University): Scale-up and Implementation of 

Strategies to Improve Quality and Process Efficiency During Manufacturing of Dairy 

Ingredients [ongoing 2015]; Comparison of Functionality and Properties of Liquid Concentrates 

and Dried Dairy Ingredients [initiated 2015].

Phillip S. Tong, Ph.D. (California Polytechnic State University – San Luis Obispo): California 

Dairy Center Application Laboratory Program [ongoing 2015].

Michael Tunnick, Ph.D. (USDA-Agricultural Research Service): Long-term Shelf Life Studies of 

Whey Protein Concentrates (WPC 34 and WPC 80) Under Adverse Storage Conditions 

[concluded 2015].

Martin Wiedmann, Ph.D., D.V.M. (Cornell University): Control of post-pasteurization 

contamination of Pasteurized Fluid Milk Through Improved Sanitation [initiated 2015]; Impact 

of Bedding Type in Raw Milk Contamination with Spore Formers Affecting Dairy Powder 

Quality [initiated 2015].

Bongkosh Vardhanabhuti, Ph.D. (University of Missouri) and Lloyd Metzger, Ph.D. (South 

Dakota State University): Whey Protein Ingredient with Improved Emulsification Properties

[initiated 2015].

Qixin Zhong, Ph.D. (University of Tennessee): Dairy Protein-based Antimicrobial Delivery 

System to Improve the Microbial Safety of Dairy Products [concluded 2015]; Hydrocolloids for 

Improved Recovery and Utilization of Lactose [concluded 2015]. 
61

Nutrition Competitive Research Activities in 2015

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, INSTITUTION, PROJECT TITLE AND STATUS

Lacy Alexander Ph.D. (Pennsylvania State University): Milk and cheese consumption and 

human microvascular function [concluded 2015].

Dominik Alexander, Ph.D., MSPH (EpidStat Institute): Meta-analysis of Dairy Consumption and 

Body Composition [Ongoing 2015]. 

Connie W. Bales, PH.D., RD (Duke University Medical Center): An Enhanced Protein (dairy) 

Weight Loss Intervention for Dynapenic Obesity: Impact on Muscle Quality and Composition

[initiated 2015].

Bradley Bolling, Ph.D. (University of Wisconsin-Madison/Center for Dairy Research): 

Reduction of Obesity-Associated Intestinal Inflammation by Low-Fat Dairy Yogurt [ongoing 

2015].

Sarah L. Booth, Ph.D. (Tufts University): Menaquinone (Vitamin K2) Content of Dairy Products

[initiated 2015].

Richard Bruno, Ph.D. (Ohio State University): Dairy Fat as a Mediator of Vitamin E Adequacy 

in Individuals With Metabolic Syndrome [ongoing 2015]; Regulation of Postprandial Nitric 

Oxide Bioavailability and Vascular Function by Dairy Milk [initiated 2015].

Wayne Campbell, Ph.D. (Purdue University): Impact of Fluid Milk of Post-Meal Glycemia and 

Insulinemia in Overweight/Obese Adults with Normal or Impaired Glucose Tolerance or Type 2 

Diabetes [concluded 2015]; Dietary Protein Intake and Source and Body Composition in U.S. 

Adults Aged 50 years and Older [concluded 2015]; Effects of Milk Protein Concentrate on Blood 

Pressure, Inflammation, Muscle Composition, and Metabolic Health During Weight Loss in 

Overweight/obese Adults [concluded 2015]; Effects of Dietary Protein Patterning on Weight 

Loss and Resistance Training-induced Changes in Body Composition, Skeletal Muscle, and 

Indices of Metabolic Syndrome [ongoing 2015].

Sharon Donovan, Ph.D., RD and Barbara Fiese, Ph.D. (University of Illinois at Urbana -

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

[ongoing 2015].

Michael Fenech, Ph.D. (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation 

(Australia): Whey Protein Isolate as a Source of Vitamin B12 and to Lower Homocysteine and 

Methylmalonic Acid in the Alderly [ongoing 2015].

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

in the General U.S. Population [ongoing 2015].
62

Mathew Hayes, Ph.D. (University of Pennsylvania): Milk Protein Concentrate Improves the 

Metabolic Effects of GLP-1-based Pharmacotherapy in Diabetic Rat Models [ongoing 2015]

Kevin Heffernan, Ph.D. (Syracuse University): Efficacy of Whey Protein to Improve 

Cerebrovascular and Cognitive Function in Older Adults [ongoing 2015].

Rachel Johnson, Ph.D., MPH, RD (University of Vermont): Evaluating the Acceptance of 

Reformulated Flavored Milk in Schools [ongoing 2015].

Samual Klein, M.D. (Washington University School of Medicine): Diet and exercise 

intervention in Type 2 Diabetes [ongoing 2015].

Jana Kraft, Ph.D. (University of Vermont): Researching the Effects of Consuming a Diet 

Comprising of Milk Fat on Metabolic Health Markers [ongoing 2015].

Mario Kratz, Ph.D. (Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center - University of Washington): The 

Impact of Low-fat and Full-fat Dairy Consumption on Glucose Homeostasis [initiated 2015].

Ronald M. Krauss, Ph.D. (Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute): Effect of a Modified 

Lower Carbohydrate, High Fat DASH Diet Plan on Plasma Lipids, Lipoprotein Particle Size 

and Blood Pressure in Healthy Adults [ongoing 2015]; Effects of Replacing Sugar Sweetened 

Beverages with Milk on Metabolic Risk Factors in Overweight and Obese Adolescents [ongoing 

2015].

Benoit Lamarche, Ph.D. (Laval University) Investigation of the Impact of Cheese Consumption 

on HDL Function [ongoing 2015].

Luc JC van Loon, Ph.D. (Maastricht University) Casein in Milk as a Functional Ingredient for 

the Prevention of Sarcopenia [ongoing 2015].

Kevin C. Maki, Ph.D. (Midwest Center for Metabolic and Cardiovascular Research): A 

Randomized, Controlled Crossover Trial of Acute Cognitive, Appetite, Glucose, and Insulin 

Responses to Five Milk or Juice Beverages or Water in Men and Women [ongoing 2015]. 

Benjamin F. Miller, Ph.D. (Colorado State University): Activation of Nrf2 by Conjugated 

Linoleic Acid to Decrease Oxidative Stress and Inflammation and Thereby Increase Muscle 

Building Effects of Milk Proteins [ongoing 2015].

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

Metabolic Outcomes in Older Men [ongoing 2015]; Yogurt, Blood Pressure and Cardiovascular 

Risk in Three Prospective Cohorts [ongoing 2015]; Effects of Animal and Plant Proteins on 

Functional Decline in Older Adults [initiated 2015]; Effects of Sodium and Other Dairy-related 

Minerals on Blood Pressure and Cardiovascular Outcomes [initiated 2015].
63

Douglas Paddon-Jones, Ph.D. (University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston): Whey Protein, 

Aging and Physical Inactivity [ongoing 2015].

Peggy Papathakis, Ph.D. (California Polytechnic State University – San Luis Obispo): 

Randomized Controlled Trial of the Impact of Treating Moderately Malnourished Women in 

Pregnancy with Sub Studies [ongoing 2015].

Stuart Phillips, Ph.D. (McMaster University): Whey Protein Intake in the Amelioration of 

Skeletal Muscle Quantity and Function During Inactivity in Older Adults [initiated 2015].

Michael J. Saunders, Ph.D. (James Madison University): Tolerance to Intensified Cycle Training 

and Subsequent Adaptations: Influence of Chocolate Milk Dairy Protein Supplementation 

[concluded 2015].

Tonya Schoenfuss, Ph.D. (University of Minnesota): Evaluation of Cheese with Desirable Fat 

and Sodium Attributes for School Lunch Snack Choices [ongoing 2015].

Ego Seemen, M.D. (University of Melbourne): Study into Improved Health for Elderly Through 

Increased Dairy Consumption [ongoing 2015].

Mary Beth Spitznagel, Ph.D., and John Gunstad, Ph.D. (Kent State University): Is Milk the Drink 

that Helps You Think? Dairy, Acute Glycemic Control, and Cognitive Function [ongoing 2015].

Hans H. Stein, Ph.D. (University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign): Amino Acid Digestibility and 

DIAAS Values in Dairy Proteins and Other Sources of Protein Used in Human Consumption 

[concluded 2015].

Hirofumi Tanaka, Ph.D. (University of Texas): Effects of Fluid Milk in Attenuating 

Hyperglycemia and Hypertriglyceridemia for Meal [concluded 2015]; Destiffening and 

Hypotensive Effects of Whole Milk and Full-fat Dairy Products [initiated 2015].

Jeff Volek, Ph.D. (Ohio State University): Controlled Clinical Study to Determine Novel Health 

Benefits of Cheese Consumption [initiated 2015].

Elena Volpi, M.D., Ph.D. (University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston): Whey Protein and 

Exercise to Accelerate Recovery of Muscle Mass and Function After Acute Hospitalization in 

Previously Independent Older Adults [ongoing 2015].

Taylor Wallace, Ph.D. (National Osteoporosis Foundation): Dietary Protein – Fracture 

Outcomes and Markers of Bone Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis [initiated 2015].

Christine D. Wu, Ph.D. (University of Illinois-Chicago): Consumption of Milk after Sugar 

Snacks Reduces Dental Plaque Acid Production and Benefits Oral Health in Children [initiated 

2015].
64

Sustainability Competitive Research Activities in 2015

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, INSTITUTION, PROJECT TITLE AND STATUS

Eric Boerwinkle, Ph.D. (University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston):

National Nutrient Optimization & Dairy (NaNO-Dairy) [ongoing 2015].

R. A. Erdman (National Research Council): Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle [ongoing 

2015].

B. D. Goldstein (National Academy of Sciences): Critical Role of Animal Science Research in 

Food Security and Sustainability [concluded 2015].

Ermias Kebreab, Ph.D. (University of California and California Dairy Research Foundation): 

Modeling the Trade-off Between Diet Costs and Methane Emissions: A Goal Programming 

Approach [concluded 2015]; Prediction and Evaluation of Enteric Methane Emissions from 

Lactating Dairy Cows Using Different Levels of Covariate Information [concluded 2015].

Greg Thoma, Ph.D. (University of Arkansas): Life Cycle Environmental Assessment of Yogurt 

Production and Consumption in the USA [concluded 2015].
65

National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board 

2015 Contracts Approved by USDA

ADVERTISING, PROMOTION, AND PUBLIC RELATIONS

Common Ground MSG Spokesperson representation

Challenged Athletes Foundation Official Recovery Beverage

CMGRP Advertising and Promotion services

DoExtra CRM Solutions, LLC Salesforce consulting

Foote, Cone & Belding, NYC IPG Meals at Home promotion

In Tech Attachment Promotional Products Inventory and Materials

Ipsos-Insight LLC Validate effectiveness of Milk Life Campaign

Lowe Profero, LLC Advertising and Promotion services

Lowe Venture Associates Milk Life Blogger contest

MGSCOMM Hispanic Advertising and Promotion services

National Soccer Coaches Association Promotion outreach

Spectrum Group Productions, Inc. Audio Visual services

ThinkVine Virtual marketplaces simulation

Upshot, Inc. Creative concept development

MARKET RESEARCH AND EVALUATION, AND CONSULTING SERVICES

Alexander, Craig Consulting Services

Applied Thinking LLC Research services

Food for Thought, Inc. Scientific and Regulatory Material review

Gail Golden Consulting, LLC Executive coaching

Heather J. Leidy, Ph.D. Medical Advisory Board

IDFA Office support services

McLeod, Watkinson & Miller Outside counsel

Red Spark Consulting LLC Great American Food Drive

Zaborsky Consulting services

Prime Consulting Group Insights into current trends and sales growth 

opportunities

Protagonist Research services

Radius Global Market Research Consulting services

Snyder Cohen, PC Audit services

Abrams, Steve M.D. Medical advisory services















National Fluid Milk Processor

Promotion Board

Financial Statements

and

Independent Auditor's Report

Years Ended December 31, 2015 and 2014

1250 H Street, N.W., Suite 950

Washington, D.C. 20005