U.S. Department of Agriculture

Report to Congress

on the

National Dairy Promotion

and Research Program

and the

National Fluid Milk

Processor Promotion Program

2012 Program Activities

 
Contact Information

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

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

independent analysis of the programs, please contact:

Promotion, Research, and Planning Division

Dairy Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA

Stop 0233, Room 2958-South

1400 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20250-0233

(202) 720-6909

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

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

please contact:

Dr. Oral Capps, Jr. 

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

Economics Research Center

Texas A&M University

Department of Agricultural Economics

2124 TAMU

College Station, TX 77843

(979) 845-5911

Email: AFCERC@tamu.edu

http://AFCERC.tamu.edu

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

Management Inc., please contact:

National Dairy Promotion and Research Board

Dairy Management Inc.

10255 West Higgins Road, Suite 900

Rosemont, IL 60018-5616

(847) 803-2000

http://www.dairyinfo.com

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

contact:

National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board

1250 H Street, NW, Suite 950

Washington, DC 20005

(202) 737-0153

http://milkpep.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

iii
Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Export and Dry Ingredients......................................................................................................7

Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy...........................................................................................10

Sustainability..........................................................................................................................11

Future of Food: Food Security in the 21st Century ..............................................................12

Food Safety..............................................................................................12

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

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

Qualified Dairy Product Promotion, Research or Nutrition Education Programs.................15

National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board ..................................................................15

Medical Advisory Board........................................................................................................17

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

Breakfast at Home – General Market and Hispanic ..............................................................17

Refuel with Chocolate Milk...................................................................................................18

Breakfast at Home - Hispanic ................................................................................................18

Business Development and Research ....................................................................................19

Chapter 2: USDA Activities...............................................................................................20

National Dairy Promotion and Research Board Oversight....................................................20

Nominations and Appointments ............................................................................................20

Organic Exemption ................................................................................................................20

Amendment to the Dairy Act.................................................................................................21

Foreign Agricultural Service..................................................................................................21

Contracts................................................................................................................................22

Contractor Audits...................................................................................................................22

Collections.............................................................................................................................22

Compliance ............................................................................................................................22

Qualified Programs................................................................................................................22

National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board Oversight..................................................23

Nominations and Appointments ............................................................................................23

Program Development ...........................................................................................................23

Contractor Audits...................................................................................................................23

Compliance ............................................................................................................................23

iv
Contents, continued

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

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

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

Introduction............................................................................................................................24

Summary of Findings.............................................................................................................25

Objectives of the Evaluation Study........................................................................................25

Checkoff Expenditures Made by DMI, MilkPEP, and QPs...................................................26

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

Findings on Impacts of Demand-Enhancing

 Expenditures for Dairy Products.......................................................................................37

Estimation of Supply Changes Attributed to

 Checkoff Expenditures......................................................................................................38

Benefit Cost Ratios ...............................................................................................................41

Partner Evaluation..................................................................................................................41

Sensitivity of Consumption at QSRs Related to 

 Dairy Partnership Expenditures........................................................................................41

Connecting Incremental Servings to Cheese and Milk..........................................................42

Concluding Remarks..............................................................................................................43

v
Executive Summary

The enabling legislation of the dairy producer 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 promotion programs are conducted under the Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 

1983 (7 U.S.C. 4501 et seq.) (Dairy Act); the Dairy Promotion and Research Order (7 CFR § 

1150) (Dairy Order); the Fluid Milk Promotion Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6401 et seq.) (Fluid Milk 

Act); and the Fluid Milk Promotion Order (7CFR § 1160) (Fluid Milk Order), respectively. This 

report includes summaries of the activities for the dairy and fluid milk programs, including an 

accounting of funds collected and spent; USDA activities; and an independent analysis of the 

effectiveness of the advertising campaigns of the two programs. Unless otherwise noted, this 

report addresses program activities for the fiscal period January 1 through December 31, 2012, of 

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

National Dairy Promotion and Research Program

Mandatory assessments collected under the Dairy Act totaled $102.6 million in 2012, including 

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

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

$99.7 million and the 7.5-cent-per-hundredweight dairy importer assessment was $2.8 million. 

Qualified Programs revenue was $197.2 million for 2012. 

Expenditures by the Dairy Board and many of the Qualified Programs are integrated through a 

joint process of planning and program implementation so that the programs work together on the 

national, regional, State, and local level. The Dairy Board continued to develop and implement 

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

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

During 2012, the Dairy Board continued its support for Fuel Up to Play 60, a partnership 

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

collaboration with the USDA, to combat childhood obesity in schools. The Innovation Center 

for U.S. Dairy (Innovation Center) co-hosted a “Future of Food: Food Security in the 21st

Century” forum to discuss the role of American agriculture, and the dairy industry, in food 

security and the growing global population. The Innovation Center also continued its focus on 

maintaining consumer confidence in dairy products through food safety workshops that provide 

education to dairy processors on best practices and techniques for in-plant pathogen control. The 

Dairy Board continued its support of sustainability research and created an industry-wide 

Stewardship and Sustainability Guide for voluntary measurement to help companies answer 

increasing customer and consumer questions about dairy’s sustainability in a consistent way. 

Details of the activities of the dairy producer and dairy importer program are presented in 

Chapter 1. 

1
National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Program

The National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board (Fluid Milk Board) continued to administer 

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

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

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

lower 48 States and the District of Columbia. In 2012, the fluid milk marketing plans shifted 

focus and moved forward with an occasion-based strategy, based on the long-range plan and 

strategic roadmap that identified breakfast at home as having the best potential to stem the 

decline in fluid milk consumption. 

The Fluid Milk Board launched The Breakfast Project in 2012 and focused on highlighting 

breakfast at home as the ideal opportunity to drink milk. Through the use of its Social Media 

Command Center, a comprehensive social listening and engagement program, the Fluid Milk 

Board was able to engage with consumers and influencers and share why milk should be a part 

of breakfast each day. During 2012, the Fluid Milk Board continued and intensified its efforts to 

position chocolate milk as the refuel beverage of choice for athletes. The Fluid Milk Board also 

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

growing Hispanic population. In early spring 2012, the Fluid Milk Board partnered with 

Univision to conduct the “Saborea el Éxito con Leche” contest, where 27 consumers were 

awarded a year’s supply of milk along with a grand prize of appearing in local got milk? ®

commercials.

Assessments generated $103.3 million in 2012. The Fluid Milk Order requires the Fluid Milk 

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

Milk Processor Board. The amount returned to California from the 2012 assessments was 

$9.6 million. The California fluid milk processor promotion program uses the funds to conduct 

its promotion activities, which include the got milk?® advertising campaign. The 2012 activities 

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

section in Chapter 1 of this report.

USDA Oversight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

programs. Additional USDA responsibilities relate to nominating and appointing Board 

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

conducting periodic program audits. The Boards reimburse the Secretary of Agriculture, as 

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

analysis discussed in Chapter 3. In 2012, the Secretary of Agriculture appointed 11 members to 

the Dairy Board and 5 members to the Fluid Milk Board. Chapter 2 details USDA’s oversight 

activities. 

2
Independent Analysis

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

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

Fluid Milk Board. It is estimated that the generic fluid milk marketing activities sponsored by 

the programs have helped mitigate the decline of fluid milk consumption. Specifically, gains in 

revenue at the farm level were far greater than the costs of the programs. The benefit-cost ratios 

for fluid milk were calculated to be $2.14 for every dollar invested; for cheese, $4.26 for every 

dollar invested; and for butter, $9.63 for every dollar invested. 

3
Chapter 1

The Dairy and Fluid Milk Promotion Programs

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

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

activities of each board. 

National Dairy Promotion and Research Board 

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

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

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

approving budgets, and monitoring the results of the programs.

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

are dairy producers who each represent one of 12 geographic regions within the United States,

and 2 of whom represent dairy importers. The appointments are made from nominations 

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

qualified dairy product promotion, research, or nutrition education programs. Members serve 

staggered 3-year terms with no member serving more than two consecutive terms. 

Total Dairy Board actual revenue for 2012 was $102.6 million (including assessments and 

interest). The Dairy Board amended its budget to $109.1 million by incorporating program 

development funds not budgeted previously and carry-forward from their 2011 budget. The 

Dairy Board budget for 2013 projects total revenue of $101.7 million from domestic and import 

assessments and interest. The Dairy Board’s administrative budget continued to be within the 5

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

for 2012 is provided in Appendix B–1. USDA’s oversight and evaluation expenses for 2012 are 

listed in Appendix B–2. Appendix B–3 displays the Dairy Board’s approved budget for 2012. 

An independent auditor’s report for 2012 is provided in Appendix C–1.

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

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

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

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

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

Dairy Industry Association (UDIA). 

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

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

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

those of the American Dairy Association® and National Dairy Council®. The mission of DMI is 

to drive increased sales of and demand for dairy products and ingredients, on behalf of dairy 

producers and dairy importers. DMI works proactively in partnership with leaders and 

innovators to increase and apply knowledge that leverages opportunities to expand dairy 

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

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

DMI serves both boards and facilitates the integration of promotion funds through a joint process 

of planning and program implementation so that the programs on the national, regional, State, 

and local level work together. The Dairy Board and UDIA Board must separately approve the 

DMI budget and annual plan before they can be implemented. In December 2011, both boards 

approved the 2012 unified dairy promotion plan budget and national implementation programs. 

During 2012, DMI continued to implement a national staffing structure which utilizes personnel 

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

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

Research Centers and one Nutrition Institute provided much of the research in 2012. Their 

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

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

and E–3, respectively. Universities and other industry researchers throughout the United States 

compete for these research contracts.

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

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

the following joint program committees: Research and Insights; Health and Wellness; Export 

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

Chair and Vice-Chair. The joint committees and the DMI staff set program priorities, plan 

activities and projects, and evaluate results. During 2012, the Dairy and UDIA Board met jointly 

six times.

In 2012, DMI again 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 opportunity for grassroots dairy farmers to 

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

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

programs and initiatives implemented in 2012.

National Dairy Council®

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

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

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

the media, physicians, 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.

5
In 2012, NDC launched a partnership with Feeding America and the Academy of Nutrition and 

Dietetics. This partnership aims to help fight hunger and make additional resources available for 

the nearly 50 million Americans who are food insecure. As part of this partnership, these 

organizations will identify ways to improve access to milk and other dairy foods at local food 

banks. 

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

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

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

represent more than 250,000 health professionals nationwide. 

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

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

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

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

dairy. 

Fuel Up to Play 60 

Fuel Up to Play 60 (FUTP60) is an in-school program that 

combines the nutrition expertise of NDC and the fitness expertise 

and star power of the NFL to combat childhood obesity and 

provide youth with resources necessary to improve their personal 

health and school environment. FUTP60 is based on the USDA’s Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans that recommend the consumption of more fruits, vegetables, low-fat and fat-free dairy 

foods, and whole grains, and getting 60 minutes of daily physical activity. 

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

2012/2013 school year. Students and schools joined the program by signing up at 

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

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

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

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

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

throughout the student body. 

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

Student Ambassador Summit in Washington, D.C. The student leaders were chosen from 

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

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

in leadership training sessions, shared success stories and tips, and provided feedback on the 

6
program. Special guests included Matt Cassel, then Quarterback of the Kansas City Chiefs, 

LaVar Arrington, NFL Alumni, and Byron Sackett, Director of Child Nutrition, Lincoln County 

Schools, North Carolina, who discussed healthy eating plays that work in schools. 

Gen YOUth Foundation

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

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

behavior. 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. The Foundation is governed and managed by a board of directors that covers 

multiple fields of expertise, including agriculture, health and nutrition, sports and fitness, media, 

education, and the culinary arts. The Foundation board meets twice a year to identify sustainable 

solutions to the childhood obesity epidemic.

In September 2012, the Foundation, NDC, the American College of Sports Medicine, and the 

American School Health Association co-hosted a Learning Connection Summit (Summit). The 

Summit was organized to help school stakeholders and thought leaders recognize the link 

between good nutrition, especially breakfast consumption, and physical activity and improved 

learning and behavior in schools. The attendees examined the growing body of research focused 

on the “learning connection” that physical activity and nutrition have to learning and behavior 

and explored innovative solutions to address the challenge of reversing the child health crisis and 

positively impacting academic performance. 

The Summit also featured a Leadership Round Table discussion that brought together business 

leaders, health and education panelists, and Fuel Up to Play 60 Student Ambassadors to discuss 

their own experiences, goals, obstacles, and successes, and identify collaborative solutions to 

improve nutrition and physical activity in schools. A report resulting from the Summit is 

expected to be released in 2013 summarizing the science-based concept that improved nutrition 

coupled with increased physical activity helps lead to better academic performance.

Export and Dry Ingredients

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

(USDEC). Supported through the checkoff program since it was established by U.S. dairy 

producers in 1995, USDEC receives primary funding from three sources: DMI, USDA’s Foreign 

Agricultural Service’s (FAS) Market Access Program and Foreign Market Development 

Program, and other FAS promotion programs, as well as membership dues. In 2012, DMI 

provided $17.9 million; FAS $5.6 million; and membership dues $1.1 million for a total budget 

of $24.6 million. 

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

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

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

7
In 2012, USDEC put in place a framework to begin to realign and evolve resources and 

programming to help U.S. suppliers to meet their commercial needs within a vastly new global 

dairy business environment. As part of the organization’s “strategic evolution” that began 2

years earlier, USDEC began to place a greater emphasis on its market access, trade policy, and 

strategy and insights programs, while still delivering channel-driven global marketing services 

and promotion in emerging markets. 

U.S. member suppliers leveraged USDEC programs in market development, market access, and 

trade policy to improve their sales to overseas customers in 2012. As well, through the 

Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy, USDEC continued work to solidify the U.S. dairy industry as a 

consistent global supplier so that it can withstand new and emerging suppliers.

In 2012, U.S. dairy export value reached $5.2 billion while volume totaled 3.2 billion pounds 

(Figure 1-2). This export volume equated to 13.2 percent of U.S. milk solids product in 2012, 

nearly identical to the previous year when the equivalent of 13.3 percent of U.S solids headed 

overseas. Meanwhile, imports as a percent of milk solids production were just 3.2 percent in 

2012 (Figure 1-3).

Exports represented 45 percent of the nonfat dry milk and skim milk powder produced in the 

United States in 2012, 47 percent of dry whey, 66 percent of the lactose, 5.5 percent of the 

butter, and a record 5.3 percent of the cheese.

U.S. dairy exports to Mexico, the number one market, totaled $1.23 billion for the second 

straight year topping the $1 billion mark. Other major markets were Southeast Asia 

($921 million), Canada ($554 million), China/Hong Kong ($443 million), Middle East/North 

Africa ($431 million), Japan ($284 million), South America ($255 million), South Korea 

($227 million) and Australia/New Zealand ($213 million).

Figure 1–1. USDEC Offices.

 

8
Figure 1–2. Value and Volume of U.S. Dairy Exports, 2012.

Source: USDEC, National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF), USDA

Figure 1–3. U.S. Dairy Trade Balance, 1996–2012.

Source: USDEC, NMPF, USDA

9
USDEC, with the support of the dairy checkoff, continued working to improve the global (export 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specification Sheets–cover technical basics of a variety of dairy ingredients and are updated as 

new data is available; (2) Dairy Herald–reports periodically on how food formulators and 

markets can take advantage of taste, cost, functional and nutritional appeal of dairy ingredients; 

(3) Application Monographs–published as necessary, provide a comprehensive look at how whey 

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

needs; (4) Tools for Innovation--a periodic supplement from DMI and Dairy Foods magazine 

that covers dairy product trends and research; (5) Innovations in Dairy–a technical bulletin, 

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

and packaging; and (6) Dairy Business View–an e-newsletter published bi-monthly with Dairy 

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

and research.

Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy 

Dairy producers, processors, and manufacturers 

announced an unprecedented agreement in 2008

to collaborate on pre-competitive initiatives 

through a new Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy 

(Innovation Center). The goal of the agreement is 

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

competitive consumer marketplace.

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

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

organization to collaborate on major issues affecting the industry. 

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

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

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

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

people, healthy products, and a healthy planet. The board of directors for the Innovation Center 

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

the Nation’s leading processors, manufacturers, and brands. DMI staffs and supports the 

Innovation Center.

10
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 – to provide a strategic analysis of the global dairy landscape and a 

common understanding of the challenges, opportunities, and threats posed by increasing 

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

dairy products they want in a way that is economically viable, environmentally sound, and 

socially responsible; and Food Safety – to improve food safety practices and to protect trust in 

dairy. 

Sustainability 

In 2012, dairy leaders continued their industry-wide commitment and action plan to reduce the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

through retail. Based on goals from the Sustainability Summit, the following projects and 

resources have been created to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions: 

1. Farm SMART – Provides dairy producers with their farms’ environmental footprint. 

It also allows them to compare energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and water use 

against regional and national averages compiled.

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

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

adoption of new practices and technologies.

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

add value and reduce costs to dairy producer operations. 

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

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

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

barriers, such as technology and financing.

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

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

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

heat–based pasteurization. 

11
7. Processing and Packaging Lifecycle Assessment (LCA) – Study findings on processing 

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

review, in 2012.

8. Dairy Fleet Smart – Development and testing of a tool to support fuel and cost reductions 

in milk transport and distribution of dairy products.

At a special awards ceremony in March 2012, the first ever U.S. Dairy Sustainability Award 

winners were announced. The awards recognize dairy farms, businesses, and collaborative 

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

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

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

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

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

idea by the dairy industry. Members of the dairy supply chain, academia, government, media, 

business, and nongovernmental organizations comprised the judging panel.

In the fall of 2012, the Innovation Center’s Sustainability Council completed a draft version of a 

Stewardship and Sustainability Guide for U.S. Dairy (Sustainability Guide). The goal of the 

Sustainability Guide is to provide a useful and meaningful approach to voluntary sustainability 

tracking and communication. An important motivator in the creation of the guide was a lack of a 

comprehensive sustainability measurement and communication system for the dairy industry 

based on science and developed with practical input from the dairy industry and its stakeholders. 

The draft Sustainability Guide offers a systematic, unified approach for dairy farms and 

companies to evaluate performance and identify opportunities for improvement. The 

Sustainability Guide addresses dairy farms and companies of all sizes and helps to optimize 

performance identify opportunities for improvement and efficiency. The Council provided a 

draft of the Sustainability Guide to the dairy industry for review and feedback. A completed 

document is expected in 2013. 

Future of Food: Food Security in the 21st Century

The global population is expected to reach 9 billion by 2050. Recognizing the challenge of 

providing nutritious, affordable food to feed a growing population while using fewer resources, 

the Innovation Center, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, and the Washington Post cohosted a live, online panel discussion at the Washington Post headquarters in June 2012. Panel 

participants discussed the role of American agriculture and the dairy industry in food security, 

availability, and affordability in the United States and around the world. The forum set the 

backdrop for the National Dairy Council’s Feeding America partnership announcement. 

Food Safety

The Food Safety Committee was created to improve manufacturing conditions in all dairy 

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

dairy industry across all plants in the United States. In 2012, the Food Safety Committee, 

12
through the International Dairy Foods Association and the Innovation Center, held several dairy 

plant food safety workshops. Nearly 400 attendees were trained in dairy processing and 

manufacturing pathogen control as well as supply chain safety. 

The pathogen control workshops focused on food-safety prerequisite programs to Hazard

Analysis and Critical Control Point that will prevent the growth and establishment of pathogens 

in dairy plant environments and on product contact surfaces. Specific attention was devoted to 

components of the Innovation Center’s pathogen-control program, which includes good 

manufacturing procedures, controlled floor conditions, separation of raw and ready-to-eat 

products, sanitation, sanitary design and environmental monitoring.

The Food Safety Committee’s supply chain workshops concentrated on total food safety 

performance of the supply chain. The course curriculum is designed to diminish risks from 

suppliers of ingredients, equipment, and service through to the finished products of dairy 

manufacturing facilities. The course provides best supply chain food safety practices for dairy 

industry companies and includes a “tool kit” to address food safety hazards assessment, 

prevention, and mitigation practices.

Dairy Research Institute

The Dairy Research Institute (DRI) 

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

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

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

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

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

to technical research for the dairy industry. 

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

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

identifies funding. 

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

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

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

climate impact. Product research includes applications and technical support, cheese, fluid 

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

Sustainability research projects include greenhouse gas reduction opportunities and lifecycle 

assessments. Finally, planning/partnership/regulatory research includes business development 

strategy, planning and partnerships, and regulatory affairs guidance. 

In 2012, DRI continued its monthly e-newsletter, Dairy Research Insights, to provide updates on 

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

published research related to DRI’s nutrition, product, and sustainability priority areas. 

13
The e-newsletter also provides a list of upcoming events, such as conferences, short courses, and 

workshops.

Industry and Image Relations

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

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

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

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

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

In 2012, DMI launched www.dairygood.org, as a new platform for the dairy industry to 

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

put a “face” on the 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 drive conversation 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. TYS provides dairy producers with 

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

the dairy industry’s production practices and products. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

placement, and farm broadcast interviews). 

DMI continued its Issues Management and Crisis Readiness programs in 2012. DMI staff and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

modern farming practices. 

14
The Crisis Readiness program continued to develop a strong network of dairy industry and 

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

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

disease outbreak, product contamination, or food-borne illness. The checkoff led several

regional crisis drills in 2012 that engaged many sectors of the industry, focusing on hypothetical 

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

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

steps taken within the first 24 hours of a crisis. 

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

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

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

sites. DMI also continued to work with the Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board to execute 

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

butter sales in select markets across the United States.

Qualified Dairy Product Promotion, Research, or Nutrition Education Programs 

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

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

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

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

financed by producers, either individually or through cooperative associations 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). A list of the Qualified 

Programs is provided in Appendix F.

The aggregate revenue from the assessment directed to the Qualified Programs in 2012 was 

$197.2 million (approximately 10 cents out of the 15-cent producer assessment and 2.5 cents out 

of the importer 7.5-cent assessment). See Appendix B–7 and Appendix B–8 for aggregate 

income and expenditure data of the Qualified Programs.

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

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

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

efficient management of promotion dollars through larger, broad-based projects. For example, to 

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

resources of 19 federation members and their affiliated units.

National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board

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

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

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

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

15
fluid milk products in the contiguous 48 States and the District of Columbia. The fluid milk 

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

changing the attitudes and purchase behavior of Americans regarding fluid milk. 

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

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

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

from the general public. Four fluid milk processors and one public member serve as at-large 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

program committees (Breakfast at Home-General Market, Breakfast at Home-Hispanic, Refuel, 

and Business Development and Research) to address the Fluid Milk Board’s concern that it 

provide the best possible oversight of program spending. The program committees are 

responsible for setting program priorities, planning activities and projects, and evaluating results. 

The Fluid Milk Board maintained the Finance Committee that reviews all program authorization 

requests for funding sufficiency, the Fluid Milk Board’s independent financial audit, and the 

work of the board’s accounting firm. The Fluid Milk Board met three times during 2012.

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

cent per hundredweight assessment on fluid milk products processed and marketed commercially 

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

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

less of fluid milk products each month, excluding fluid milk products delivered to consumer 

residences. Assessments generated $103.3 million in 2012. The Fluid Milk Order requires the 

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

California Milk Processor Board. The amount returned to California from 2012 assessments was 

$9.6 million. The California fluid milk processor promotion program uses the funds to conduct 

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

The actual income and expenses for 2011-2012 are provided in Appendix B-4. The Fluid Milk 

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

required by the Fluid Milk Order. USDA’s oversight and evaluation expenses for 2012 are 

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

2012. Appendix C-2 contains an independent auditor’s reports for the period of January 1 

through December 31, 2012.

16
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, met twice in 

2012. The MAB provides guidance to the Fluid Milk Board’s development of key nutritional 

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

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

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

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

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

benefits of milk.

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

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

MAB continued to inform others in the scientific community about the strong research that 

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

National Fluid Milk Programs

In 2012, the fluid milk marketing plans shifted focus and moved forward with an occasion-based 

strategy, based on a long range plan and strategic roadmap that identifies breakfast at home as 

having the best potential to stem the decline in fluid milk consumption. The Breakfast Project 

launched in 2012 and focused on highlighting breakfast at home as the ideal opportunity to drink 

milk. Retailers and processors were all engaged, conducting marketing and promotional 

activities around breakfast at home. MilkPEP’s Social Media Command Center was used to 

engage with consumers and influencers across a wide array of social media channels. 

Additionally, MilkPEP intensified its efforts to position chocolate milk as the refuel beverage of 

choice for athletes and also promoted the importance of refueling after exercise with chocolate 

milk. As in previous years, MilkPEP used various communication media to accomplish these 

objectives, including television and print advertising, press releases, promotions, Internet, and 

social media. A description of the 2012 program activities follows.

Breakfast at Home – General Market and Hispanic

The Breakfast Project, a multi-faceted campaign encouraging consumers to eat breakfast at home 

each day and include milk, was the centerpiece of the Fluid Milk Board’s 2012 activities. Within 

the social media sphere, it is estimated that 18 million conversations occur annually around the 

topic of breakfast. The Breakfast Project used these statistics to develop programs and shareable 

content each month, all themed to support why milk should be a part of breakfast each day. The 

MilkPEP employed the Social Media Command Center, a comprehensive social listening and 

engagement program, in order to fully engage with consumers and influencers across Facebook, 

Twitter, Pinterest, YouTube, and other social media channels. To engage processors, MilkPEP 

made all of the breakfast at home content available to processors each month, who in turn used 

the content to engage their own customers and create their own on-line communities and amplify 

the breakfast at home messages.

17
Salma Hayek, popular actress and mother, joined MilkPEP’s well-known milk mustache and got 

milk?® equities as a spokesperson for television, print, and public relations in the 2012 general 

market and Hispanic campaigns. Ms. Hayek was featured in two television commercials and two 

print advertisements and delivered messages consistent with the breakfast at home theme. 

Appendix G includes thumbnail images of the Fluid Milk Board’s print advertisements and 

promotional activities.

Refuel with Chocolate Milk

MilkPEP continued to promote its chocolate refuel message to adult (ages 18-34) audiences in 

2012. The Grassroots REFUEL with Chocolate Milk tour traveled across the country to 32 milk 

events with the Ironman Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathon race series and the Challenged Athletes 

Foundation. Processors were highly engaged in the race events, and distributed over 215,000 

samples of low fat chocolate milk to athletes as they completed the races. Processors also 

participated in events at Life Time Fitness and other Ironman related venues to reach athletes and 

amplify the REFUEL message.

New in 2012, MilkPEP launched the “My After” national campaign at “Endurance Live” in Los 

Angeles, California, and featured USA Basketball Men’s National Team member Carmelo 

Anthony, swimming medalist Dara Torres, five other 2012 USA Swimming Team members, 

plus 2010 Ironman World Champion Mirinda Carfrae. The featured athletes delivered 

messaging at the event about how refueling with chocolate milk can play an important role 

during an athlete’s after-workout ritual. “My After” differed from traditional milk mustache 

advertising campaigns wherein all of the content was “mustache-free” and highlighted the 

importance of chocolate milk in after-workout rituals. 

Additionally, the new Web site www.gotchocolatemilk.com was launched and provided 

extensive information about the science supporting refueling with chocolate milk. The Web site 

also featured webisodes of top athletes and invited everyday athletes to apply to join Team 

REFUEL for a chance to get sponsored and win the opportunity to be featured in their very own 

got chocolate milk? advertisement.

Appendix G includes thumbnail images of the Fluid Milk Board’s “My After” print 

advertisements.

Breakfast at Home – Hispanic

MilkPEP continued its Hispanic campaign in 2012 as part of the industry’s outreach to the 

growing Hispanic population. The Hispanic campaign activities mirrored many of the general 

market programs and activities to MilkPEP’s occasion-based strategy shift. The messaging 

reinforced milk’s role during the breakfast occasion. Similar to the general market campaign, 

Salma Hayek served as the spokesperson for the Hispanic programs, commercials, and print 

advertisements. 

18
Consistent with previous years, MilkPEP also created programs to recognize cultural differences

and meet the unique needs of this increasingly growing population. In early spring, MilkPEP 

partnered with Univision to conduct the “Saborea el Éxito con Leche” contest. Twenty-seven 

consumers were awarded a year’s supply of milk along with a grand prize of appearing in local 

got milk?® commercials. The milk with breakfast at home messaging was delivered in 27 media 

markets and garnered over 62 million media impressions.

MilkPEP also celebrated milk’s role in Latino nutrition and culture during Hispanic Heritage

Month and developed a milk mustache print advertisement that featured television host Karla 

Martínez, NFL player Victor Cruz, and astronaut José Hernández. The advertisement delivered 

messaging about the importance of a healthy breakfast to fuel active and successful days.

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

Hispanic in the Breakfast Project section.

Business Development and Research

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

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

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

Over the years, BDR has conducted market tests and studies in various business channels to 

develop ways to increase milk sales and subsequently turn these studies into customer-friendly 

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

In 2012, MilkPEP continued its commitment to conducting research and providing the guiding 

light to build the strategy for the consumer campaign. MilkPEP conducted groundbreaking 

research that has helped shape the direction of the consumer-facing breakfast program. 

In addition to the breakfast segmentation research, MilkPEP conducted additional research 

against the Refuel message strategy to lead the effort in research campaign development. 

Ongoing efforts such as the Consumption Tracker, Attitude and Awareness Tracker, All Channel 

Tracking, and the Annual School Survey help the industry keep a pulse of what is happening in 

milk consumption and help develop new plans that drive better business practices. In 2012, 

MilkPEP also introduced a series of topline reports to give processors a monthly look at the state 

of the industry as it related to fluid milk sales and school consumption of flavored milk. 

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

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

Customers can also visit www.milkdelivers.org, or call the milk hotline at 1-800-945-MILK 

(6455) for copies of presentations, videos, and printed materials. 

19
Chapter 2

USDA Activities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dairy Programs also uses the “Guidelines for AMS Oversight of Commodity Research and 

Promotion Programs” to govern oversight and facilitate the application of legislative and 

regulatory provisions of the Acts and the Orders. 

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

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

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

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

compliance, and enforcement actions. 

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

amending the Orders, conducting referenda, and conducting periodic management reviews. 

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

meetings related to the program.

National Dairy Promotion and Research Board 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.

A list of Dairy Board members appears in Appendix A–1. Appendix H–1 depicts the 12

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

Organic Exemption 

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

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

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

20
Section 1150.157 of the Dairy Order. In States that have mandatory assessment laws, dairy 

producers are exempt only from the Federal assessment. Producers are still responsible for 

remittance of State assessments. In 2012, approximately 1,112 dairy producers were granted 

exemptions, representing approximately 1.9 billion pounds of production. The Dairy Order 

requires producers to re-apply annually to continue to receive the exemption.

Amendment to the Dairy Act 

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

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

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

report to Congress.

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

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

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

participating in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Air Quality Compliance Agreement 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EPA. The EPA will have up to 18 months to complete its data interpretation. The Dairy Board 

owns the equipment used to conduct the study, and at a May 2010 meeting, the Board passed a 

motion to donate the equipment to universities to be used for further research. Additionally, the 

Dairy Board will use $100,000 of the remaining NAEMS money to fund an interpretive 

summary that will compare the NAEMS data with previous studies, identify future research 

needs, create an outreach document, evaluate the NAEMS data quality in terms of completeness 

and representativeness, and determine relationships of other measured variables on farm 

emissions. 

Foreign Agricultural Service

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

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

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

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

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

USDA policies. AMS Dairy Programs reviewed 87 USDEC contracts during 2012. 

21
Contracts

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

approved by the Secretary (7 CFR 1150.140). During 2012, Dairy Programs reviewed and 

approved 185 Dairy Board and DMI agreements, amendments, and annual plans. Appendix D–1 

lists the contractors and corresponding board initiatives approved by USDA.

Contractor Audits 

In 2012, DMI retained the certified public accounting firm of Ernst & Young to audit the records 

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

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

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

Collections

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

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

collect an assessment based upon the number of hundredweights of milk for commercial use 

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

current rate of assessment is 15 cents per hundredweight of milk for commercial use or the 

equivalent thereof as determined by the Secretary.

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

hundredweight assessment to Qualified Programs. During 2012, the Dairy Board received 

about 5.03 cents per hundredweight of the 15-cent assessment. 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, then the entire assessment is retained by the Dairy Board for use by the 

national program.

Compliance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Qualified Programs

In 2012, Dairy Programs reviewed applications for continued qualification from 66 Qualified 

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

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

22
income and expenditure data from each program. The data reported from the Qualified 

Programs are included in aggregate form for 2012 in Appendix B–7 and Appendix B–8.

National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board Oversight

Nominations and Appointments

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

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

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

members who fill vacancies with a term of 18 months or less may serve 2 additional 3-year 

terms. The Secretary selects Fluid Board members from nominations submitted by fluid milk 

processors, interested parties, and eligible organizations. 

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

depicting the 15 geographic regions under the Fluid Milk Order. 

Program Development

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

and Machado/Garcia-Serra, LLC, to develop its mom and teen advertising, promotions, 

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

Contractor Audits

As noted in the 2011 Report to Congress, the Board determined that beginning in 2012 it would 

conduct audits of specified periods on all primary contractors each year. The Fluid Milk Board 

retained the certified public accounting firm of Snyder, Cohn, Collyer, Hamilton & Associates, 

P.C. (Snyder Cohn), in 2012 to audit the records of Deutsch Worldwide, Inc., for the periods of 

October 2011 and May and July 2012; Draftfcb, Inc., for the periods of November 2011, and 

February and April 2012; Machado/Garcia-Serra, LLC, for the period of July through September 

2012; and Weber Shandwick, for the periods of August and December 2011, and June 2012. 

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

conformed to the financial compliance requirements specified in their individual agreements

with the Board. 

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

amounts invoiced to the Board are in compliance with established contracts and procedures. No 

material exceptions were found. 

Compliance

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

timely manner and at a high rate.

23
Chapter 3

Quantitative Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Marketing and Promotion 

Activities by the Milk Processor Education Program, 

Dairy Management, Inc., and Qualified Programs

The Dairy 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 checkoff programs, specifically the marketing and promotion programs.

Introduction

Dairy farmers, dairy importers, and dairy processors contribute to a variety of marketing and 

promotion activities for dairy products. The objective of these programs is to increase the 

consumption of fluid milk and manufactured dairy products. The legislative authorization for 

these programs requires an independent analysis of the overall effectiveness of the marketing and 

promotion efforts. This report provides a summary of the second year of the required evaluation 

conducted by researchers at the Agribusiness, Food, and Consumer Economics Research Center

at Texas A&M University (http://afcerc.tamu.edu). 

The scope and organization of this summary are as follows: First, the objectives are stated.

Next, the trends in dairy product consumption and the history of marketing and promotion 

expenditures are reported. Subsequently, the main findings from the quantitative analysis are 

provided, highlighting the benefit-to-cost ratios (BCRs) of the investments made. The BCRs are 

shown for the aggregate of all dairy products, fluid milk, cheese, butter, dairy exports, and the 

partnership program with Domino’s Pizza. The BCR is the dollar value of gains to the checkoff 

funders from a one-dollar investment in promotion.

As a supplement to the summary of results, three major quantitative studies which comprise the

work are featured: (1) econometric models of specific dairy products; (2) a producer-level 

simulation model of the dairy industry that incorporates farm supply; and (3) a quantitative study 

of the partnership program between Dairy Management, Inc. (DMI) and Domino’s Pizza. The 

latter two models are additions to the analysis provided in earlier years’ Reports to Congress, 

evaluating the dairy program. 

The producer-level simulation model provides a more complete picture of the linkage between 

retail demand, market prices, and farm supply. No previous evaluation of dairy marketing and 

promotion activities has included this explicit treatment of supply response. Because of this 

feature, the study contains estimates of the benefits to farmers in terms of producer profit above 

costs. The fact that benefits are in terms of producers’ net profits, not simply a comparison of 

revenue-to-cost, provides the industry with more relevant information as to how demandenhancing investments affect dairy farmers’ bottom lines. Collaboration with researchers at the 

University of Missouri has made the development of the retail-to-farm simulation model

24
possible. As a result of this approach, the BCRs are based on an economic model of the 

interactions of supply and demand since 1995.

The study of the Domino’s Pizza partnership is another unique feature of this research project. It 

addresses the change in the marketing strategies of the DMI board of directors to focus more on 

business-to-business partnerships, of which the Domino’s partnership was just one. This DMI 

effort leverages well-known consumer brands and assures that more dairy products are used in 

value-added foods.

Summary of Findings

The overall finding of this evaluation is that the U.S. dairy checkoff programs have effectively 

increased the supply, demand, prices, and exports of dairy products. The gains in profit at the 

farm level were far larger than the costs of the checkoff programs. The impact on producers is 

summarized with a BCR. The BCRs are based on the demand-enhancing expenditures only; 

therefore they do not account for certain operating expenses such as overhead, technical support, 

industry relations, and corporate technology.

It has been a typical practice for analysts investigating demand response to aggregate all dairy 

products into a single category. This practice requires that the unlike goods – cheese, fluid milk, 

and butter – be measured on a common unit basis. This measurement can be done on the basis of 

skim solids or on the basis of fat content. The findings under either of these means of 

measurement indicate a significant positive relationship between demand for dairy and the 

checkoff program expenditures, in both the short-run and the long-run. The aggregate, all-dairy 

BCR is 3.05, meaning that the producer profit increases by $3.05 for a one-dollar investment in 

demand-enhancing activities.

The BCRs in terms of producer profit were calculated to be $2.14 for every dollar invested in 

demand-enhancing activities of fluid milk; $4.26 for every dollar invested in demand-enhancing 

activities of cheese; and $9.63 for every dollar invested in demand-enhancing activities of butter. 

The BCR of export promotion is $5.12 per dollar invested. The BCR of the DMI partnership 

with Domino’s Pizza is approximately $4.31 in terms of farm revenue per dollar of DMI 

expenditure, depending on the amount of cheese used on the typical serving of pizza. 

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

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

evaluation of generic commodity promotion.

Objectives of the Evaluation Study

The dairy checkoff programs are evaluated with the following two key questions in mind:

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

fluid milk processors actually increased the demand for fluid milk and manufactured 

dairy products?

25
2. Is the dairy industry better off as a result of the demand-enhancing programs initiated by 

DMI, MilkPEP, and the Qualified Dairy Product Promotion, Research, or Nutrition 

Education Programs (QPs)? In other words, have these marketing and promotion 

programs generated sufficient additional dairy industry revenues to more than cover their 

associated costs?

Historically, the effectiveness of the dairy marketing and promotion programs has been 

measured through econometric studies focusing on the relationships between the consumption of 

dairy products and the dairy checkoff demand-enhancing expenditures. These demand 

relationships are estimated in a structure that controls for the impacts of market forces.

Economic returns to the dairy checkoff funders 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 BCR. It is interpreted as the dollar value of net profit gains associated with a one-dollar 

investment in demand-enhancing activities.

The objectives of this report are threefold: 

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

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

exports.

2. Develop a simulation model to calculate the impacts of the dairy checkoff program on the 

dairy industry as well as calculate BCRs for dairy producers, dairy importers, and fluid

milk processors.

3. Quantitatively assess the impacts of the DMI partnership with Domino’s Pizza. 

This evaluation covers the time period from 1995 to 2012 and captures the joint efforts of DMI, 

MilkPEP, and QPs.

Checkoff Expenditures Made by DMI, MilkPEP, and QPs

Data for the analysis were acquired from DMI, MilkPEP, and QPs. The demand-enhancing 

expenditures from all three entities were aggregated. While the three entities are 

administratively distinct, they are well coordinated and have similar objectives for enhancing 

dairy demand.

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

advertising dollars to media outlets, including television, outdoor, print, radio, and the Internet. 

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

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

nutritional educational 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. 

26
Certain checkoff 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. Although they are not retail, these expenditures are included in the 

classification of demand-enhancing expenditures. Expenditures for overhead, technical support, 

industry relations, and corporate technology were excluded from the analysis because they are 

not primarily demand-enhancing. 

Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1 depict annual checkoff expenditures made by DMI, MilkPEP, and the 

QPs over the period 1995 to 2012. On average, slightly more than $350 million in total was 

spent annually by the respective entities over this period, and about $400 million in each year 

from 2010 to 2012. Median DMI expenditures were close to $90 million per year, ranging from 

$65.3 million to $99.7 million. Similarly, median MilkPEP expenditures were about $95 million 

per year, ranging from $38.7 million to $101.9 million. Finally, median expenditures made by 

QPs were about $175 million per year, nearly double the expenditures made by DMI and 

MilkPEP individually.

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

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

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

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

Table 3-1. Annual Checkoff Expenditures from DMI, MilkPEP, and QPs, 1995 to 20121

Year DMI MilkPEP QPs Total

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

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

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

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

1999 $90,055 $97,023 $161,161 $348,238

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2011 $88,456 $91,289 $214,764 $394,509

2012 $82,360 $91,893 $206,4482 $380,7012

1

Thousands of dollars.

2

Projected.

Source: DMI, MilkPEP, and USDA.

27
Figure 3-1. Annual Checkoff Expenditures Made by DMI, MilkPEP, and QPs, 1995 to 2012

Source: DMI, MilkPEP, and USDA

The details of this interpolation process were described in the Report to Congress on 2011 

program activities. 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. 

Figure 3-2 shows nominal seasonally-adjusted demand-enhancing expenditures by DMI, 

MilkPEP, and QPs on a quarterly basis from 1995 to 2012. These demand-enhancing 

expenditures varied from $51.0 million to $96.7 million per quarter, averaging $67.3 million.

Figure 3-3 exhibits nominal seasonally-adjusted demand-enhancing expenditures for fluid milk 

from DMI, MilkPEP, and QPs on a quarterly basis from 1995 to 2012. From 1995 to 2006, 

nominal seasonally-adjusted quarterly marketing and promotion expenditures for fluid milk 

ranged from roughly $23.6 million to $62.9 million per quarter. After 2006, marketing and 

promotion expenditures for fluid milk fell noticeably, ranging from $23.6 million to $32.3 

million per quarter. Over the period from 1995 to 2012, nominal seasonally-adjusted demandenhancing expenditures for fluid milk averaged $35.5 million per quarter.

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

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

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

associated with cheese were much smaller compared to 1995 to 2004. On average, expenditures 

on marketing and cheese promotion were $12 million during the period. Owing to partnerships 

with the pizza industry, notably Domino’s Pizza, expenditures on cheese increased from the

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Thousands of Dollars

DMI MilkPEP QPs

28
Figure 3-2. Nominal Seasonally-Adjusted Demand-Enhancing Expenditures from DMI, 

MilkPEP, and QPs for All Dairy Products, 1995.1 to 2012.41

1

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

nutrition education, and market and economic research.

Source: DMI, MilkPEP, and USDA

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

from DMI, MilkPEP, and QPs, 1995.1 to 2012.4

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

50,000,000

60,000,000

70,000,000

80,000,000

90,000,000

100,000,000

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

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

Dollars Dollars

29
fourth quarter of 2008 to the end of 2012. During this latter time frame, nominal quarterly 

expenditures on marketing and promotion activities ranged from $7.7 million to $18 million, 

averaging $12.8 million per quarter. Over the period 1995 to 2012, nominal seasonally adjusted 

demand-enhancing expenditures for cheese averaged $17.5 million per quarter.

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

on marketing and promotion of butter ranged from $60,000 to $6.0 million, averaging slightly 

more than $1.0 million per quarter over the period 1995 to 2012. Marketing and promotion 

expenditures for butter represent a fraction of comparable expenditures for fluid milk and cheese.

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

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

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

Healthy Kids. 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.

Global dairy markets are another arena in which dairy checkoff funds are invested. Figures 3-6a 

through 3-6c show the export promotion programs of the United States. Nominal seasonallyadjusted DMI expenditures directed to dairy exports on a quarterly basis ranged from $763 to 

approximately $5.0 million, as seen in Figure 3-6a. The trend in these DMI expenditures has 

been upward from 1995 to 2012, averaging about $2.0 million per quarter over this period. As 

exhibited in Figure 3-6b, nominal seasonally-adjusted expenditures by USDA’s

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

DMI and QPs, 1995.1 to 2012.4

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

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

Dollars

30
Figure 3-5. Nominal Seasonally-Adjusted Demand-Enhancing Expenditures for Butter from 

DMI and QPs, 1995.1 to 2012.4

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

Figure 3-6a. Nominal Seasonally-Adjusted DMI Expenditures Directed to Commercial Exports 

of Dairy Products, 1995.1 to 2012.4

Source: DMI and calculations by the authors.

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

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

Dollars Dollars

31
Figure 3-6b. Nominal Seasonally-Adjusted USDA FAS Expenditures Directed to Commercial 

Exports of Dairy Products, 1997.1 to 2012.41

1

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: USDA, FAS and calculations by the authors.

FAS directed to commercial 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 2012. On average, USDA FAS 

expenditures were nearly $1.0 million per quarter. As presented in Figure 3-6c, nominal 

seasonally-adjusted sum of DMI and USDA FAS expenditures ranged from $763 to $5.9 million 

per quarter, averaging $2.9 million on a quarterly basis from 1995 to 2012.

Figure 3-6c. Nominal Seasonally-Adjusted DMI and USDA FAS Expenditures Directed to 

Commercial Exports of Dairy Products, 1995.1 to 2012.4

Source: Calculations by the authors.

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

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

Dollars Dollars

32
Trends in Consumption

On average, over the 1995 to 2012 period, quarterly per capita consumption (measured 

specifically with data on domestic commercial disappearance) of butter, cheese, and fluid milk 

were 1.2 pounds, 7.9 pounds, and 47.3 pounds respectively. The range of quarterly consumption 

for butter was from 0.9 pounds to 1.7 pounds (Figure 3-7), for cheese from 6.5 pounds to 9.3 

pounds (Figure 3-8), and for fluid milk from 40.8 pounds to 53.3 pounds (Figure 3-9). Figures 

3-10 and 3-11 show the trends in total domestic dairy consumption on a milkfat and skim solids 

basis. Fluid milk consumption has been trending down over the period, on a per-capita basis. 

Cheese consumption per capita has grown modestly to partly compensate the industry for the 

reduction in per capita milk consumption. Recent research found that declining consumption 

reflects changes in the frequency of fluid milk intake, rather than changes in portions (Stewart, 

Dong, and Carlson, 2013). Americans born in the 1990s tend to consume fluid milk less often

than those born in the 1970s and earlier. 

Total U.S. dairy exports grew over the 1995 to 2012 period, due largely to strong growth in 

exports of low fat dairy products such as nonfat dry milk. On a milk equivalent skim solids 

basis, the growth in U.S. dairy exports was strikingly large, nearly exponential, from an average 

1.3 billion pounds per quarter in 1995 to just over 8.3 billion pounds on average per quarter in 

2012 (Figure 3-12). Over the same period, however, measured on a milk equivalent fat basis, 

average quarterly U.S. dairy exports followed a positive but much less robust trend from a 

quarterly average of 765 million pounds in 1995 to nearly 2.2 billion pounds in 2012 

(Figure 3-12).

Overall, the long-run trend of declining consumption of fluid milk continues, 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 by the dairy 

checkoff 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 prices and income. The next section reports the results.

33
Figure 3-7. Per Capita U.S. Consumption of Butter, 1995.1 to 2012.4

Source: USDA

Figure 3-8. Per Capita U.S. Consumption of Cheese, 1995.1 to 2012.4

Source: USDA

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Pounds Pounds

34
Figure 3-9. Per Capita U.S. Consumption of Fluid Milk, 1995.1 to 2012.4

Source: USDA

Figure 3-10. Per Capita U.S. Consumption of All Dairy Products on a Milk Equivalent Fat 

Basis, 1995.1 to 2012.4

Source: USDA and calculations by the authors.

40

42

44

46

48

50

52

54

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

136

140

144

148

152

156

160

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Pounds

Pounds

35
Figure 3-11. Per Capita U.S. Consumption of All Dairy Products on a Skim Solids Basis, 

1995.1 to 2012.4

Source: USDA and calculations by the authors.

Figure 3-12. U.S. Dairy Commercial Exports on a Milk Equivalent Fat Basis and Skim Solids 

Basis, 1995.1 to 2012.4

Source: USDA and calculations by the authors.

128

130

132

134

136

138

140

142

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Pounds Million Pounds

Skim Solids 

Basis

Fat Basis

36
Findings on Impacts of Demand-Enhancing Expenditures for Dairy Products

This evaluation study indicates a significant positive association between dairy checkoff program 

expenditures and consumer demand (Table 3-2). This association holds for all dairy products in 

the aggregate and for fluid milk, cheese, and butter. The impact is modest during the quarter in 

which expenditures are made, while the cumulative impact is measurably larger. 

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 is 

also known as an elasticity and is defined as the percentage change in consumption given a one 

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

The model concentrates on the retail level of the marketing chain and provides structural 

parameter estimates that are statistically valid and largely consistent with prior studies in the 

literature on evaluation of generic commodity promotion. In this analysis, unlike the previous 

report, we allow the promotion elasticities to vary over time, with variation in expenditures. 

Some of the key findings of the economic analysis follow: 

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

commercial disappearance of dairy products. (Commercial disappearance generally 

serves as the indicator for consumption or demand in USDA statistics.)

• Consumer demand is generally affected more by prices and incomes than by the demandenhancing expenditures.

• Dairy markets are becoming less responsive to demand-enhancing expenditures over 

time.

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

2012. 

Promotion

1995 to 2012

Promotion

2012 only

Own-Price Income

Butter1 0.031 0.041 -0.154 0.438

Cheese1 0.032 0.022 -0.096 0.149

Fluid milk1 0.063 0.050 -0.056 0.077

All dairy1

 Skim solids basis 0.051 0.044 -0.230 0.170

 Fat basis 0.048 0.041 -0.070 0.340

Exports1

 Skim solids basis 0.041 0.041 -0.255 0.521

 Fat basis 0.077 0.077 -0.233 0.879

Partnership2 0.017 0.017 -1.008 1.053

Note: The parameters entitled “Promotion” are elasticities with respect to demand-enhancing expenditures. The 

first column is for the entire period and incorporates cumulative lag effects. The second column is for the 

immediate response in 2012.

1

Over the time period January 1995 to December 2012

2

Over the time period January 2009 to June 2012

37
The results of market sensitivity to the demand-enhancing activities are consistent with the 

findings of the analysis reported for 2011 program activities, covering the period 1995-2011. 

The 1-year update confirmed that the economic conditions in the dairy product market were 

generally stable. In comparison to previous published research studies that utilized other 

methodologies, the demand-enhancement parameters reported in this study are generally lower, 

although within a reasonable range. 

An important refinement to the quantitative model for this report is that the demand 

responsiveness to promotion was allowed to vary over time. Further, the cumulative impact of 

promotion was also identified. Demand-enhancing expenditures were found to affect the market 

for cheese and butter for up to six quarters. The lag effect on fluid milk was over 12 quarters. 

For the aggregate of all dairy products, the lag effect persisted for eight quarters.

Estimation of Supply Changes Attributed to Checkoff Expenditures

To the extent that the dairy checkoff program increases demand, the market price logically 

should increase. As a result of the higher prices, the checkoff program also may stimulate higher 

production over time that would not have otherwise occurred. That increase in supply has a 

moderating effect on the extent of the price increase. In this analysis, the approach is to model 

and measure the supply response and the pass-through from the retail level up the dairy value 

chain to farmers. 

The supply analysis is accomplished by aligning the annual model of the U.S. dairy industry 

maintained at the University of Missouri (Agricultural Markets and Policy Group Dairy Model) 

with the observed data over the 1995 to 2011 period. The impact of promotion is obtained by 

removing demand-enhancing expenditures from the system. There is a simulated “demandenhancement” scenario representing the actual history, contrasted with a simulated “no demandenhancement” scenario to reflect the levels of prices and quantities expected in the absence of 

the dairy checkoff program. 

On average across all years, the simulation analysis indicates that dairy promotion spending 

increased milk supplies by 4.16 billion pounds and raised the U.S. all milk price by $0.55 per 

hundredweight on average in each year. All milk and dairy product prices are higher with the 

exception of butter, where milkfat production rises with milk production but outweighs the small 

amount of promotion done for butter, compared to products with higher skim content.

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. This analysis starts in 1995 and ignores any 

promotion effects that would have occurred prior to 1995. The 1995 to 1998 period had the 

highest increase in milk and dairy product prices because the milk supply side did not have time 

to fully adjust to the effects of dairy promotion. The U.S. all milk price for this period is $1.17 

per hundredweight higher as a result of dairy promotion. Milk production is 2.2 percent higher 

reflecting the supply response as a result of the higher prices from dairy promotion. Both 

product prices and per capita consumption levels are higher in the1995 to 1998 period with the 

exception of nonfat dry milk, which falls because no promotion spending takes place for 

38
domestic nonfat dry milk consumption and stronger nonfat dry milk exports occur at the expense 

of domestic consumption. 

In the 1999 to 2002 period, milk supplies had more time to fully adjust to the increase in milk 

prices resulting from dairy promotion. Milk production is up 3.2 percent in this period and 

moderates the increase in the U.S. all milk price to $0.46 per hundredweight. In the dairy 

product markets there are several factors at play that provide different results depending on the 

dairy product in question. First, remember that cheese and fluid milk receive the largest portion 

of dairy promotion dollars. For these two products, consumption and prices remain higher as a 

result of promotion. For butter, prices decline in this period as the additional fat supplied to the 

marketplace is larger than the promotion effect for butter, which is small over this particular 

period. Note that the added fluid demand results in a larger pull for nonfat solids than fat, which 

adds to the weakness in butter prices. Stronger export demand for nonfat dry milk keeps nonfat 

dry milk prices higher in this period despite no domestic promotion spending and a decline in 

domestic consumption.

In period three, 2003 to 2006, the increase in milk supplies is moderated slightly from those in 

the earlier period but the outcomes are similar to those of the previous period. The further 

adjustment of milk supplies coupled with a general reduction in promotion expenditures over this 

period mutes the increase in milk prices to $0.22 per hundredweight.

The fourth period, 2007 to 2011, is similar to the third period with further moderation of milk 

supplies as the supply side continues its adjustment for promotion spending. This results in U.S. 

all milk prices that increase by $0.38 per hundredweight over the period. 

A few key results of this analysis need to be highlighted. First, although fluid milk consumption 

increases as a result of dairy promotion, total fluid milk consumption still declines across time. 

Dairy promotion spending on fluid milk only reduces the rate of decline. Also, the mix of 

promotion dollars spent on each product results in a unique time path for these results. A 

different mix of spending on individual dairy products would have a different effect on the 

industry so one must be cautious in drawing generalizations on dairy promotion from this 

analysis.

Finally, Federal dairy policy is also important to the outcomes shown. Class III milk prices tend 

to increase more than Class IV milk prices due to the larger spending on cheese promotion. The 

higher of Class III or Class IV prices drive Class I prices and therefore the direct payments made 

under the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) program. These are important nuances to these 

results.

39
Table 3-3. Effects of Dairy Promotion on U.S. Dairy Markets Based on Simulation of Supply 

Response.

Source: Calculation by the authors.

Level ∆ % ∆ Level ∆ % ∆ Level ∆ % ∆ Level ∆ % ∆ Level ∆ % ∆

U.S. Dairy Cows (mil. head)

 Promotion 9.31 0.16 1.7% 9.15 0.26 3.0% 9.07 0.22 2.5% 9.20 0.17 1.9% 9.18 0.20 2.2%

 No Promotion 9.16 8.89 8.85 9.03 8.98

U.S. Milk Production (bil. pounds)

 Promotion 155.66 3.40 2.2% 166.34 5.17 3.2% 174.97 4.41 2.6% 190.81 3.76 2.0% 173.06 4.16 2.5%

 No Promotion 152.27 161.17 170.57 187.05 168.90

U.S. All Milk Price ($/cwt.)

 Promotion 14.11 1.17 9.1% 13.50 0.46 3.5% 14.21 0.22 1.6% 17.44 0.38 2.3% 14.97 0.55 3.8%

 No Promotion 12.93 13.04 13.99 17.05 14.42

Class III Milk Price ($/cwt.)

 Promotion 12.87 1.43 12.6% 11.42 0.69 6.5% 13.19 0.15 1.1% 15.92 0.32 2.0% 13.50 0.63 4.9%

 No Promotion 11.43 10.73 13.04 15.61 12.87

Class IV Milk Price ($/cwt.)

 Promotion 13.01 0.91 7.5% 12.27 0.26 2.2% 11.78 0.40 3.6% 15.61 0.45 3.0% 13.31 0.50 3.9%

 No Promotion 12.10 12.01 11.38 15.16 12.81

Cheese Per Capita Consumption (pounds)

 Promotion 27.37 0.76 2.8% 29.88 1.05 3.6% 31.59 0.69 2.2% 32.81 0.60 1.9% 30.55 0.76 2.6%

 No Promotion 26.61 28.83 30.90 32.21 29.79

Butter Per Capita Consumption (pounds)

 Promotion 4.30 0.07 1.6% 4.52 0.04 0.8% 4.58 0.08 1.8% 4.98 0.09 1.8% 4.62 0.07 1.5%

 No Promotion 4.24 4.48 4.50 4.89 4.55

Nonfat Dry Milk Per Capita Consumption (pounds)

 Promotion 3.42 -0.08 -2.2% 2.94 -0.05 -1.8% 3.69 -0.08 -2.0% 3.06 -0.05 -1.5% 3.26 -0.06 -1.9%

 No Promotion 3.49 3.00 3.76 3.10 3.33

Fluid Milk Per Capita Consumption (pounds)

 Promotion 216.28 10.84 5.3% 208.71 11.47 5.8% 204.51 10.50 5.4% 200.88 7.98 4.1% 207.20 10.07 5.1%

 No Promotion 205.45 197.24 194.01 192.90 197.14

Cheese Wholesale Price ($/pound)

 Promotion 1.41 0.13 10.4% 1.29 0.07 5.8% 1.42 0.01 1.0% 1.64 0.03 1.8% 1.45 0.06 4.3%

 No Promotion 1.28 1.22 1.41 1.61 1.39

Butter Wholesale Price ($/pound)

 Promotion 1.20 0.04 3.8% 1.29 -0.07 -5.1% 1.44 -0.05 -3.4% 1.55 -0.04 -2.3% 1.38 -0.03 -2.0%

 No Promotion 1.16 1.36 1.49 1.59 1.41

Nonfat Dry Milk Wholesale Price ($/pound)

 Promotion 1.11 0.08 8.1% 0.99 0.06 7.0% 0.92 0.07 8.4% 1.38 0.07 5.4% 1.12 0.07 6.9%

 No Promotion 1.03 0.93 0.85 1.31 1.05

Cheese Exports (mil. pounds)

 Promotion 91.00 16.75 22.6% 91.05 0.96 1.1% 86.59 -8.36 -8.8% 296.66 -10.33 -3.4% 150.46 -0.84 -0.6%

 No Promotion 74.25 90.09 94.95 306.99 151.30

Butter Exports (mil. pounds)

 Promotion 63.85 7.60 14% 2.27 -6.19 -73% 8.96 -11.24 -56% 111.55 -9.96 -8% 48.36 -7.36 -13%

 No Promotion 56.25 8.46 20.20 121.51 55.72

Nonfat Dry Milk Exports (mil. pounds)

 Promotion 289.26 60.01 26.2% 356.06 35.48 11.1% 551.16 35.06 6.8% 782.43 25.84 3.4% 511.65 38.32 8.1%

 No Promotion 229.25 320.58 516.11 756.59 473.34

 

1995-1998 1999-2002 2003-2006 2007-2011 1995-2011

40
Benefit-Cost Ratios

The gains in profit at the farm level were far larger than the expenditures on demandenhancement programs. This result holds even after accounting for the longer-run supply side 

adjustments that occur at the farm level when prices increase. The BCRs for fluid milk were 

calculated to be $2.14 for every dollar invested in demand-enhancing activities; for cheese $4.26 

for every dollar invested; and for butter, $9.63 for every dollar invested. Dairy export promotion 

expenditures have increased the foreign demand for U.S. dairy products by $5.12 for every dollar 

invested. For an aggregate of all dairy products, the net profit BCR is approximately $3.05 for 

every dollar spent (Table 3-4).

Partner Evaluation

Since 2009, DMI has engaged in a partnership with Domino’s Pizza. The partnership accounts 

for a majority of the DMI expenditures on cheese demand-enhancement. Beginning in 2012, 

Domino’s Pizza experienced volume growth rates that coincided with the promotion and specials 

associated with the partnership. 

The analysis measures the impact of the partnership on servings of Domino’s Pizza and on the 

amount of pizza consumed in the entire quick serve restaurant (QSR) pizza industry. The rate of 

return to the program, associated with the partnership is calculated based on this information. It 

is important to note that the economic downturn beginning in 2008 was an important feature of 

the market for eating out during this time. 

There is considerable imitation and competition among the pizza restaurant companies, which 

makes it appropriate to consider cheese utilization in the entire QSR industry, rather than 

identifying the effects at Domino’s outlets only.

Sensitivity of Consumption at QSRs Related to Dairy Partnership Expenditures

The incremental servings at Domino’s Pizza attributed to the efforts of the partnership were 

estimated to be about 22.2 million. For the entire pizza QSR category, the percentage of 

servings attributed to the efforts of the partnership was 1.72 percent. The incremental pizza QSR 

servings per dollar spent by DMI was 5.97, meaning that for every one dollar invested in the 

partnership, almost six more pizzas were sold in the QSR pizza category. In proportional terms, 

the responsiveness of pizza to demand-enhancing expenditures was 0.014, lower than the 

sensitivity to promotion in generic markets.

Table 3-4. Calculated BCRs, in Net Profit at the Farm Level Attributed to the Dairy Checkoff 

Program, 1995 to 2012

BCR (times)

All Dairy 3.05

Fluid milk 2.14

Cheese 4.26

Butter 9.63

Exports 5.12

41
Connecting Incremental Servings to Cheese and Milk

Cheese manufacturers use varying quantities of milk in processing. The pizza cheese used in 

QSRs is typically from cow’s milk and contains blends of mozzarella, provolone, and sometimes 

parmesan cheeses. The mozzarella used on QSR pizza is usually a low-moisture product made 

from whole milk or part-skim milk. 

To connect the impact of advertising-induced boost in pizza consumption to the benefit to 

producers, some assumptions had to be made. Namely, one needs to know the ounces of cheese 

in a serving of pizza and the quantity of milk needed to produce a pound of mozzarella cheese. 

To account for some important unknown variables, Table 3-5 provides sensitivity analysis with 

respect to the amount of cheese per pizza. The estimated milk-to-cheese conversion is 8.33 

pounds of milk for 1 pound of mozzarella cheese (USDA/ARS 2012). 

The best-estimate BCR evaluated at the producer level is 4.31. A reasonable range of the BCR is 

between 2.69 and 5.92, depending on the amount of cheese on the pizza. The quantity of cheese 

per pizza serving is the most significant unknown factor which explains the range in the BCR 

estimate. It is likely that cheese use varies by company and perhaps within a company, and over 

time there are changes in the amount of cheese used. Using an estimate of 8 ounces of cheese on 

the pizza as a baseline, the total incremental pounds of milk consumed because of DMI’s 

partnership with Domino’s is 1.02 billion pounds of additional milk. The cumulative total value 

of the incremental sales due to the partnership is $177 million (for 2009-2012) valued at the 

monthly farm price of milk. 

The findings of the econometric model in Domino’s pizza servings indicate that pricing 

strategies are important drivers in the changes in quantity of pizza servings sold (Table 3-5). The 

own-price elasticity of demand is estimated to be -1.057, indicating that a 1.0 percent increase in 

the pizza price is associated with a 1.06 percent reduction in the quantity of Domino’s servings

sold.

In terms of competition, the pricing of the three competing brands has a marginally significant 

effect on servings of pizza sold at Domino’s. Little Caesar’s brand was found to be a substitute 

for Domino’s Pizza, with a cross-price elasticity of 0.309. The size of the coefficient indicates 

that a 1.0 percent increase in price by the rival is associated with a 0.31 percent increase in 

servings of Domino’s Pizza. Papa John’s and Pizza Hut, however, were found to be 

complements to Domino’s Pizza, with cross-price elasticities of -0.194 and -0.220 respectively.

Table 3-5. Sensitivity Analysis for Varying Ounces of Cheese per Serving of Pizza in QSRs

Ounces of Cheese

per Serving 

(assumed)

Pounds of milk

per Pound of Cheese

Benefit-Cost

Ratio

Incremental Pounds of 

Milk per Dollar Spent

5 oz. 8.33 lbs. 2.69 15.54

8 oz. 8.33 lbs. 4.31 24.87

9 oz. 8.33 lbs. 4.85 27.97

11 oz. 8.33 lbs. 5.92 34.19

Source: U.S. Jersey, National Agricultural Library, and calculations by the authors

42
Income was a significant explanatory factor in Domino’s Pizza servings, with the elasticity 

calculated to be 1.11. This income elasticity was greater than one, indicating that consumers’ 

purchases of pizza are highly sensitive to income changes.

Concluding Remarks

This report summarizes the independent evaluation of the effectiveness of the dairy industry 

marketing and promotion programs for 2012. The quantitative analysis covers the period 

1995-2012. With regard to methodology, the structural econometric models presented in this 

report are statistically valid and largely consistent with prior studies in the literature on 

evaluation of generic commodity promotion. Some of the key findings of the economic analysis 

of the dairy product market relevant to future demand-enhancing promotion efforts are as 

follows: 

• The estimated gains in net income at the farm level were far larger than the costs of the 

dairy checkoff program expenditures on demand enhancement. The BCRs for fluid milk 

were calculated to be $2.14 for every dollar invested; for cheese $4.26 for every dollar 

invested; and for butter $9.63 for every dollar invested. The BCRs were calculated to be 

$3.05 for all dairy products in aggregate. 

• Prices of fluid milk, cheese, butter, and all dairy products were significant drivers of 

consumer demand for the various dairy products. 

• Income was a significant driver of the consumption of cheese, butter, and all dairy 

products, but not fluid milk. Income is positively associated with the consumption of 

fluid milk, cheese, butter, and all dairy products.

• The supply of dairy products increased as a result of the price enhancements driven by 

the checkoff program. Supply responses led to a moderate decrease in price which 

mitigates the demand effects, but does not eliminate the net benefits to dairy producers. 

• The increase in profit generated from promotion of dairy product exports was far greater 

than the promotion expenditures. The BCR to dairy producers from export promotion 

was $5.12 for every dollar invested.

DMI has engaged food retailers in the dairy checkoff program in a variety of ways. This report 

provides a quantitative case study of the partnership with Domino’s Pizza from 2009 to 2011 as 

the basis for the evaluation of the effectiveness of the partnerships. Findings of the analysis 

were:

• The promotional activities with Domino’s Pizza included new product lines, use of more 

cheese than had been provided on similar items in the Domino's chain before the 

partnership, and the introduction of specialty cheeses into the company’s recipes. In 

short, the assistance of dairy checkoff funds was instrumental in positively affecting the 

pizza category.

43
• The BCR evaluated at the producer level is $4.31 in farm revenue associated with a dollar 

investment in the partnership. There is uncertainty about this estimate because the 

amount of cheese on a pizza is not disclosed and likely varies across companies and over 

time. A reasonable range on the BCR is between $2.69 and $5.92, depending on the 

cheese used per pizza serving.

• The competitive structure of the QSR pizza industry led other companies to imitate the 

product lines that used more cheese, generating positive spillover to the entire category.

44
Appendix A-1

National Dairy Promotion and Research Board

Member Listing

Region 1 (Alaska, Oregon, and Washington)

George E. Marsh Kima L. Simonson

Oregon Washington

2nd Term Expires 10/31/15 1st Term Expires 10/31/14

Region 2 (California and Hawaii)

James L. Ahlem Renae A. De Jager

California California

2nd Term Expires 10/31/13 1st Term Expires 10/31/13

John B. Fiscalini Stephen D. Maddox

California California

2nd Term Expires 10/31/13 2nd Term Expires 10/31/13

Ray S. Prock Brad J. Scott

California California

2nd Term Expires 10/31/15 2nd Term Expires 10/31/13

Arlene J. Vander Eyk

California

2nd Term Expires 10/31/15

Region 3 (Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming)

Jeffrey A. Hardy Ronald E. Shelton

Utah Colorado

1st Term Expires 10/31/13 2nd Term Expires 10/31/14

Region 4 (Arkansas, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas)

Lynda S. Foster Lawrence A. Hancock

Kansas Texas

1st Term Expires 10/31/14 1st Term Expires 10/31/15

Steven R. Hanson John R. Howerton

New Mexico Arkansas

1st Term Expires 10/31/13 1st Term Expires 10/31/14

Region 5 (Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota)

Paul A. Fritsche Kenton W. Holle

Minnesota North Dakota

2nd Term Expires 10/31/15 2nd Term Expires 10/31/14
Appendix A-1, continued

Region 6 (Wisconsin)

Douglas T. Danielson Lanette M. Harsdorf

Wisconsin Wisconsin

1st Term Expires 10/31/13 1st Term Expires 10/31/15

Amber L. Horn-Leiterman Edward J. Jasurda

Wisconsin Wisconsin

1st Term Expires 10/31/14 1st Term Expires 10/31/15

Sharon K. Laubscher

Wisconsin

2nd Term Expires 10/31/14

Region 7 (Illionis, Iowa, Missouri, and Nebraska)

Mark E. Erdman Larry R. Shover

Illinois Iowa

2nd Term Expires 10/31/15 1st Term Expires 10/31/14

Region 8 (Idaho)

David Veenhouwer Julie A. Veldhuis Lund

Idaho Idaho

1st Term Expires 10/31/15 1st Term Expires 10/31/14

Region 9 (Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and West Virginia)

Douglas L. Krickenbarger Urban A. Mescher 

Ohio Ohio

1st Term Expires 10/31/13 1st Term Expires 10/31/14

Susan D. K. Troyer

Indiana

2nd Term Expires 10/31/15

Region 10 (Alabama, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia)

Celeste Y. Deaderick Blackburn Zachary H. Myers

Tennessee North Carolina

1st Term Expires 10/31/14 1st Term Expires 10/31/13

Region 11 (Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania)

David P. Crowl Marilyn K. Hershey

Maryland Pennsylvania 

1st Term Expires 10/31/13 1st Term Expires 10/31/15
Appendix A-1, continued

Region 12 (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, 

and Vermont)

Harold J. Howrigan, Jr. Ronald R. McCormick

Vermont New York

1st Term Expires 10/31/14 2nd Term Expires 10/31/15

Sanford Stauffer

New York

1st Term Expires 10/31/13

Importers

Kenneth E. Meyers Giovanna Vita

New Jersey Illinois

1st Term Expires 10/31/2014 1st Term Expires 10/31/2013
Appendix A-2

National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board

Member Listing

Region 1 (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and 

Vermont)

Tunde E. Balazs

Perry’s Ice Cream

New York

Term Expires 06/30/2013

Region 2 (New Jersey and New York)

Chris Ross

H.P. Hood, L.L.C.

Massachusetts

Term Expires 06/30/2014

Region 3 (Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia)

Jay S. Bryant

Maryland and Virginia Milk Producers Cooperative Association, Inc.

Virginia

Term Expires 06/30/2012

Region 4 (Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina)

Vacant

Region 5 (Florida)

Michael R. Smith

Publix Super Markets, Inc.

Florida

Term Expires 06/30/2014

Region 6 (Ohio and West Virginia)

Charles S. Mayfield, Jr.

Mayfield Dairy (a subsidiary of Dean Foods Company)

Tennessee

Term Expires 06/30/2012

Region 7 (Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin)

James B. Green

Kemps, L.L.C. (a subsidiary of H.P. Hood, L.L.C.)

Minnesota

Term Expires 06/30/2013

4
Appendix A-2, continued

Region 8 (Illinois and Indiana)

Vacant

Region 9 (Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee)

Edward L. Mullins

Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc.

Illinois

Term Expires 06/30/2012

Region 10 (Texas)

Nick Mysoré

Dean Foods

Texas

Term Expires 06/30/2013

Region 11 (Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and Oklahoma)

Steven M. Turner

Turner Dairy L.L.C. (a subsidiary of Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc.)

Tennessee

Term Expires 06/30/2014

Region 12 (Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah)

John R. Zuroweste

Dean Foods Company

Texas

Term Expires 06/30/2012

Region 13 (Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming)

Henry Michon

Safeway, Inc.

California

Term Expires 06/30/2013

Region 14 (Northern California)

Jay B. Simon

Super Store Industries

California

Term Expires 06/30/2014

5
Appendix A-2, continued

Region 15 (Southern California)

Timothy Kelbel

The Kroger Company, Western Division

Ohio

Term Expires 06/30/2012

Members-At-Large (Processors)

Miriam E. Brown

Anderson Erickson Dairy

Iowa

Term Expires 06/30/2012

Theresa Webb 

Farmland Dairies, LLC

New Jersey

Term Expires 06/30/2013

Scott Shehadey

Producers Dairy Foods

California

Term Expires 06/30/2014

Members-At-Large (Public)

Mary A. Hill

Mississippi

Term Expires 06/30/2012

6
Appendix B–1

National Dairy Promotion and Research Board

2012 and 2011 Actual Income and Expenses

(Thousands)

_ 2012 2011

Income

Domestic Assessment $99,739 $97,660

Import Assessment 1 2,789 761

Interest 7 5

NAEMS 2 Interest 84 0 

Total Income $102,619 $98,426

General Expenditures

General and Administrative $4,517 $4,210

USDA Oversight 740 858 

Total General Expenditures $5,257 $5,068

Program Expenditures

Domestic Marketing and Export Enhancement $87,051 $90,299

Excess of Revenue (Under) Over Expenditures $10,310 $3,059

Fund Balance, Beginning of Year $20,679 $17,620

Fund Balance, End of Year $30,989 $20,679

1 USDA announced the Dairy Import Assessment effective August 1, 2011. 

2 National Air Emissions Monitoring Study.

Source: Independent Auditor’s Report of the National Dairy Board and USDA records. 

1
Appendix B–2

2012 USDA Oversight Costs for the

National Dairy Promotion and Research Board

(Thousands)

Salaries and Benefits $417

Travel 70

Miscellaneous 1 199

Equipment 13

Total $699

Independent Evaluation $47

Total 2 $746

1 Includes overhead, transportation, rent, communications, utilities, postage, contracts, supplies, photocopying, and 

 Office of General Counsel costs.

2 The totals for USDA expenses differ slightly from those shown in Appendix B–1 because of end-of-year estimates

 that are adjusted in the following year and correspond to the Federal fiscal year, which runs from October 1st

 through September 30th.

Source: USDA Accounting Reports. 

 

2
Appendix B–3

National Dairy Promotion and Research Board

2013 Approved Budget

(Thousands)

 

Revenues

Domestic Assessments $99,300

Import Assessments 2,300

Program Development Fund 193

Interest 5 

Total Income $101,798

Expenses

General and Administrative $4,632

USDA Oversight 945

Subtotal $5,577

Unified Marketing Program Budget

Export $19,080

Fuel Up to Play 60 14,440

Industry Communications 700

Industry Image and Relations 3,617

Nutrition Affairs 8,307

Strategic Initiatives 40,057

Strategy and Insights 4,375

Supplemental Regional Programs 7,100

Other 1 5,572

Dairy Research Institute 19,498

Subtotal $122,746

Less UDIA/Unallocated Expense Share 2 ($38,051)

Board Expense Share 2 $84,694

Total Budget Expenditures $90,271

1 Other includes fixed commitments, butter promotion, value–added milk, and value–added cheese.

2 The Dairy Board and UDIA split the Unified Marketing Program expenses.

Source: Budgets received and approved by USDA from the National Dairy Board.

3
Appendix B–4

National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board

2012 and 2011 Actual Income and Expenses

(Thousands)

_ 2012 2011

Income

Assessment $103,342 $104,585

Late-Payment Charges 97 95

Interest 32 68

Other 6 7

Total Income $103,477 $104,755

General Expenditures

California Refund $9,668 $9,804

Administrative 2,459 2,506

USDA Oversight 352 426

USDA Assessment Verification 104 77 

Total General Expenditures $12,583 $12,813

Program Expenditures

Moms Target $52,721 $49,596

Teens Target 17,617 20,005

Hispanic Target 7,811 6,939

Market Research 4,025 4,557

Business Development 9,694 10,285

Program Measurement 25 22

Total Program Expenditures $91,893 $91,404

Excess of Revenue (Under) Over Expenditures ($999) $537

Fund Balance, Beginning of Year $15,705 $15,168

Fund Balance, End of Year $14,706 $15,705

Source: Independent Auditor’s Report of the Fluid Milk Board and USDA Records.

4
Appendix B–5

USDA 2012 Oversight Costs for the

National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board

(Thousands)

Salaries and Benefits $146

Travel 13

Miscellaneous 1 183

Equipment 2

Total $344

Independent Evaluation $47

Total 2 $391

1 Includes overhead, transportation, rent, communications, utilities, postage, contracts, supplies, photocopying, and 

 Office of General Counsel costs.

2 The totals for USDA expenses might differ from those shown in Appendix B–4 because of end-of-year estimates,

 which are adjusted in the following year.

Source: USDA Accounting Reports.

5
Appendix B–6

National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board

2012 Approved Budget

(Thousands)

Revenues

Assessments $101,500

Interest 50

Total Income $101,550

Carryover from Previous Fiscal Year $1,281

Total Available Funds $102,831

Expenses

General and Administrative 1 $2,281

USDA Oversight 600

California Refund 9,900

Subtotal $12,781

Program Budget

Moms Target $51,000

Hispanic Target 8,000

Teens Target 17,000

Business Development 9,900

Research 4,000

Program Measurement 2 105

Subtotal $90,005

Unallocated $45

Total Budget Expenditures $102,831

1 Processor Compliance is included in General and Administrative Expenses.

2 Independent Evaluation costs are included in Program Measurement Expenses.

Source: Budgets from the National Fluid Milk Board received and approved by USDA. 

6
Appendix B–7

2012 Aggregate Income and Expenditure Data 

Reported to USDA by the Qualified Programs

(Thousands)

 

Income

Carryover from Previous Year 1 $82,035

Producer Remittances 197,260 

Transfers from Other Qualified Programs 2 68,118

Transfers to Other Qualified Programs (62,258)

Other Income 3 6,165

Total Adjusted Annual Income $291,321

Expenditures

General and Administrative $10,056

Advertising and Sales Promotion 73,977

Unified Marketing Plan4 82,182

Dairy Foods and Nutrition Research 5,716

Public and Industry Communications 16,690

Nutrition Education 20,415

Market and Economic Research 1,273

Other 5 4,455

Total Annual Expenditures $214,763

Total Available for Future Year Programs $75,561

1 Differences are due to audit adjustments and varying accounting periods.

2 Payments transferred between Qualified Programs differ due to different accounting methods and accounting 

 periods.

3 Includes interest, income from processors and handlers, sales of supplies and materials, contributions, and rental

 income.

4 Unified Marketing Plan: Reported local spending by United Dairy Industry Association units participating in the

 Dairy Management Inc. unified marketing plan to fund national implementation programs.

5 Includes capital expenses.

Source: Data reported by the Qualified Programs. 

7
Appendix B–8

Aggregate 2012 Advertising Expenditure Data Reported 

to USDA by the Qualified Programs

(Thousands)

 

Advertising Programs

Fluid Milk $21,718

Cheese 34,103

Butter 4,394

Frozen Dairy Products 5,635

Other 1 8,127

Total $73,977

1 Includes “Real Seal,” holiday, multi-product, calcium, foodservice, product donation at State

 fairs, and other events and contributions for displays or promotional events.

Source: Data reported by the Qualified Programs. 

8

















































Appendix D–1

National Dairy Promotion and Research Board,

Dairy Management Inc. & United States Dairy Export Council

2012 Contracts Reviewed by USDA

ADVERTISING AND MARKETING SERVICES

Balvor, LLC Retail Advisory Services 

Domino’s Pizza Inc. Cheese Promotion Partnership

D S Simon Productions National Dairy Month Media 

Family Room Strategic Consulting 

Group

Fuel Up To Play 60 Promotion Support 

Florida Dairy Farmers Inc. Unified Marketing Plan Support; Caribbean Dairy 

Promotion and Communication 

H.P. Hood, LLC Consumer Awareness and Lactose Free Dairy 

Product Support 

McDonald’s Dairy Promotion Partnership 

Media Management Services, Inc. Fuel Up To Play 60 Promotion Support 

National Football League Players 

Incorporated

Fuel Up To Play 60 Promotion Support

Natural Marketing Institute Database Management 

Nestle USA Dairy Promotion Partnership 

New England Dairy & Food Council Unified Marketing Plan Support

New England Dairy Promotion Board Unified Marketing Plan Support 

Pizza Hut, Inc. Cheese Promotion Partnership 

Quaker Oats Co. Dairy Promotion Partnership

Shamrock Foods Company Refuel Innovation Partnership

Southeast United Dairy Industry 

Association, Inc.

Unified Marketing Plan Support 

Sunflower Group Greek Smoothie Experiential Marketing

Symphony/IRI Group, Inc. Lactose Free Milk Initiative

Taco Bell Dairy Promotion Partnership

The Washington Post Company Conference Sponsorship 

COMMUNICATIONS, NUTRITION EDUCATION AND PUBLIC RELATIONS

Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Hunger and Food Safety Initiatives

Action for Healthy Kids, Inc. Fuel Up To Play 60 Support

Allison & Partners Dairy Communications Management

ASK-Comm Strategies, LLC Farm Smart Communications Support

Bader Rutter & Associates

Innovation Center Communications; Health and 

Wellness Nutrition Education; Lactose 

Intolerance Communication Efforts 

Baxter Communications Video and Communication Services 

1
Burson–Marsteller Dairy Framework Communications 

Demeter Communications Cow of the Future Program Activities 

DS Griffen & Associates Dairy Forum Training

Edelman Public Relations Worldwide

Fuel Up To Play 60 Program; Dairy Image

Services; Health and Wellness Communications; 

Strategic Consulting and Coordination 

Fleishman-Hilliard Inc. Communication Planning and Services 

FoodMinds, LLC

Cheese & Sodium, Lactose Intolerance, Nutrient 

Rich Foods and Whey Protein Communications; 

Nutrition Program Strategy and Services 

Food Research and Action Center School Breakfast and Fuel Up To Play 60 

Expansion Services

Fresh Approach Commodity Roundtable 

Health & Nutrition Network Industry Image and Relations

Heinrich Research Dairy Based Breakfast Concepts Study

Hillstrom Communications Communication Planning and Services

National Dairy Shrine Program Sponsorship 

NPD Group, Inc. Consumer Surveys

Nutrition Impact, LLC Nutrition and Protein Intake Project Services

Results Direct Dairy Web site Support 

Richter Studios Dairy Farming Today Website Support 

R.L. Repass & Partners Inc. Dairy Industry Growth Opportunities Research 

Ruby–Do Special Projects Industry Image and Relations 

School Nutrition Association Fuel Up To Play 60 & School Nutrition Activities

School Nutrition Foundation Fuel Up To Play 60 & School Nutrition Activities

Team Services, LLC Fuel Up To Play 60 Promotion Support

Teri Gacek Associates Consumer Focus Groups

Universal McCann Worldwide Lactose Intolerance Communications

Weber Shandwick, Inc. Dairy Industry Crisis Readiness Program and 

MyDairy Program 

EXPORT AND INGREDIENTS

2020 Company LLC Document Management Services 

3 A Business Consulting Professional Services

Air Fresh Marketing, LLC Whey Protein Research

American Mexican Marketing Mexican Market Representation & Development 

Arab Marketing Finance, Inc. Middle East Market Representation & 

Development

Baccigaluppi, Roger Consulting Services for USDEC

Bovina Mountain Consulting Nutrition Market Report

Bryant Christie, Inc International Food Additive Database Expansion

Canadean Limited Global Dairy Ingredients Database 

Center for Food Safety Food Safety Consulting Services for USDEC

2
Contacts International Consulting, Ltd. South American Market Representation & 

Development

Dairy Australia Limited Study Into Improved Health for Elderly Through 

Increased Dairy Consumption

David Steifer Consulting Consulting Services for USDEC

DH Business Consulting Professional Services

Domino’s Pizza Enterprises Cheese Export Promotion 

Exponent, Inc. Meta-Analysis of Whey Protein 

Fabrizio & Friends Global Dairy Market Outlook, Market Analysis 

Report & News Center Website

Food Automation, LLC Traceability Pilots

Gerdes, Sharon Ingredients Consulting Services

Global Food and Nutrition Inc. Consulting Services for USDEC

JDG Consulting Consulting Services for USDEC

IntNet Korea Program Activities

International Dairy Foods Association International Dairy Trade Shows 

Kentucky Fried Chicken Japan Pacific Rim Cheese Program 

Koski, Shannon Ingredients Consulting Services

LevCom Professional Services

Little, Porter Consulting Services for USDEC

Locraft, Lauren Consulting Services for USDEC

Market Makers Inc. Japanese Market Representation & Development

Market Tree Sweetener Research

Matthews Project Services Consulting Services for USDEC

McCully Group Dairy Market Metrics, Strategies, and Analysis

Midwest Dairy Association Unified Marketing Plan Support; Ingredient Trade 

Development 

MSB Agrifood United Kingdom and European Dairy Market 

Metrics and Analysis

NIZO US Milk Powder Program Activities

Notus Associates United Kingdom Communication Services 

Novak Birch Professional Services

Onit Consulting, LLC Health and Wellness Consulting

Orrani Consulting Ltd China, Egypt, Korea, and Saudi Arabia Cheese 

and Dairy Ingredient Research 

Pacrim Associates Southeast Asia Program Activities 

Parody, Kristen Consulting Services for USDEC

Pizza Hut Hong Kong Pacific Rim Cheese Program

Pizza Hut Indonesia Pacific Rim Cheese Program

Pizza Hut Korea Pacific Rim Cheese Program

Pizza Hut Philippines Pacific Rim Cheese Program

Pizza Hut Singapore Pacific Rim Cheese Program

PR Consultants Chinese Program Activities

Project Peanut Butter Moderate Acute Malnutrition Treatment

3
Richard Fritz & Associates Ingredient Consulting Services

Rogers, Paul Consulting Services for USDEC

Schonrock Consulting Consulting Services

Shainwright Consulting Oceana Market Research Services

Siam Professionals, LLC Caribbean Communication Services 

Sorenson, Carla Consulting Services for USDEC

Story Consulting Consulting Services for USDEC

TradeMoves, LLC Import Export Trade Strategies

UBIC Europe Colustrum Research

United States Army Research Institute 

of Environmental Medicine

Milk-and Soy-Based Diet Effects on 

Musculoskeletal Health and Glucose Homeostasis

Weppler, Audrey Consulting Services for USDEC 

Woolsey, Michael Consulting Services for USDEC

Yum! Consulting Chinese Cheese Export Program Development

Zenith International Global Cheese Varietal Demand Study

MARKET AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH, CONSULTING SERVICES 

Anex, Robert Fluid Milk Life Cycle Assessment Research

Antler Consulting Accounting Services

Biofortis Provident Clinical Research Effects of Dairy Beverages on Insulin Sensitivity

CFE Solutions, Inc. Dairy Consumption Consulting Services

Clark Group The Clark Group

Clifton Larson Allen LLP Accounting Services

C&R Research Services Dairy-Based Breakfast Concepts Exploratory 

Research

Concept Green Sustainability Progress Report

Crowe Horwath LLP Sustainability Program

Culinary Sales Support Dairy Menu Product Development

Flint Group Anaerobic Digesters Report

Fox Hollow Consulting, LLC Enteric Methane Mitigation Research

GFK Custom Research Future of Dairy Research 

Girag S.A. Business Intelligence Services

Glasgow Media Graphic Services

Hale Group Food Waste Solutions

Harper Consulting Co. Ammonia Emissions Literature Review 

Hartman Group Purchase Behavior Research

Heller, Martin Dairy Life Cycle Assessment Consulting

Hellwig, Staphanie Fluid Milk Life Cycle Assessment Research

Hentges, Kahn and Strauss, LLC Sustainability Framework Services

Informa Economics Anaerobic Digesters Research

Irish-Design Dairy Sustainability Report

Kell Partners Salesforce.com Services

4
Life Cycle Services, LLC Thomas Gloria’s Dairy Packaging Life Cycle 

Assessment Research

Manomet Sustainability Framework and Environmental 

Metrics 

Marketecture Consumer Confidence Tracking 

Marketing Concepts Research Coordination 

Matlock, Marty Water Risk Management Strategies

McBean, Lois Dairy Council Digest Review Services

McLeod, Watkinson & Miller Legal Services

National Milk Producers Federation Animal Health and Wellbeing Services 

NTT Data Inc. (formerly Revere Group) Information Technology Support

Nutter Consulting, Inc. Plantsmart Development 

OMP Consulting Inc. Regulatory Affairs Consulting

Provident Clinical Research Clinical Research Consulting Services

Quantis Carbon Footprint Calculator Development

Responsibility Matters Inc. Dairy Sustainability Framework

Results Direct Website Support Services

Schenck, Rita Packaging Life Cycle Assessment Research

Strategic Conservation Consulting Services

Strategy One Dairy Consumers Research Services

Technomic, Inc. Consumer Cheese Consumption Trends

Texas AgriLife Research Quantitative Program Evaluation

TNS Custom Research, A Kantar Group 

Company Dairy Beverage Usage Development 

Tripp Borstel Management Consulting Fleetsmart and Plantsmart Program

Vela Environmental Dairy Sustainability Framework 

Watson Mulhern LLC Strategic Communications Support

World Action Teams Business Development

5
Appendix D–2

National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board 

2012 Contracts Reviewed by USDA

ADVERTISING, PROMOTION, AND PUBLIC RELATIONS

Balvor, LLC Retail Advisory Services 

Brain Juicer Group PLC Refuel Promotion Program Services 

Brodeur Partners Issues Management Communications 

Deutsch Inc.

Refuel Promotion; Public Relations; Strategic 

Communications; Database Management; English 

and Spanish Advertising and Marketing Media 

Gourvitz Communications Media Productions

Inland Label and Marketing Services Storage, Labels, and Promotional Giveaways

InTech Intergrated Marketing Services Marketing and Graphic Design Services

International Dairy Foods Association Professional Consulting and Communication 

Services 

Kellogg North America Fluid Milk Promotions

Merge Design & Interactive Media & Promotion Strategy and Design

People Espanol Hispanic Media Advertising

Protagonist, LLC Advertising and Promotion Services

Radius Global Market Research

Refuel Promotion Program Services, Serving Size 

Breakfast Beverage Segmentation Research; 

Consumer Attitudes, Consumption, and 

Advertising Tracking; Fluid Milk Market Research

RealMediaValue Company Database; Media Evaluation Services

Siboney USA Hispanic Communication Services

Spectrum Group Productions Communication Services 

Team Services, LLC Promotional Services 

Ventura Associates International LLC Promotional Services

Weber Shandwick Worldwide, Inc. Advertising and Promotion Services; Olympics; 

Refuel Promotions; Industry Communications 

MARKET RESEARCH AND EVALUATION, AND CONSULTING SERVICES

Allison Partners Dairy Communications Management

Applied Thinking, LLC Marketing Mix Consulting 

Artemis Strategy Group Refuel Promotion Program Services; Breakfast 

Research; Market Research 

Beverage Marketing Corporation Competitive Strategy Consulting

Food For Thought Consulting Scientific and Regulatory Research

Fresh Approach Communications and Roundtable 

Guia Brand Planning Hispanic Teen Market Research

Interviewing Service of America, Inc. Dairy Latte Beverage Research 

6
Kaley Warner Klemp Consulting Services

Light Industries Database Support 

Machado Garcia-Serra, LLC Hispanic Communication Services

Main Dish Media Cooking Media Services

Outloud, LLC Flavored Milk Marketing and Research 

Prime Consulting Group Inc.

Flavored Milk Program Services; Segmentation 

and Communication Channel Tracking; Surveys; 

Consulting Services

School Nutrition Association Nutrition Communications 

OTHER AGREEMENTS 

Abrams, Dr. Steven Medical Advisory Board Member Services

Barr, Dr. Susan Medical Advisory Board Member Services

Bridgewater Wealth and Financial 

Management Services Management Services

Dairy Management Inc. Foot and Mouth Disease Training Exercises

Economos, Dr. Christina Medical Advisory Board Member Services

Heaney, Dr. Robert Medical Advisory Board Member Services

Hill, Dr. James Medical Advisory Board Member Services

Johnson, Dr. Rachael Medical Advisory Board Member Services

McLeod, Watkinson & Miller Legal Services

Saunders, Dr. Michael Medical Advisory Board Member Services

Snyder, Cohn, Collyer, Hamilton & 

Associates, P.C. Accounting Services

Tipton Group Food Related Checkoff Program Research

Zaborsky, Victor Consulting Services

7
Appendix E-1

Dairy Foods Research Centers

CALIFORNIA DAIRY FOODS RESEARCH CENTER

The California Dairy Foods Research Center is a comprehensive effort to bring the full 

capabilities of the Dairy Products Technology Center at California Polytechnic State University 

at San Luis Obispo and Dairy Research and Information Center at the University of CaliforniaDavis, to support the dairy industry from farm to table. Working with the California Dairy 

Research Foundation, the California Dairy Foods Research Center conducts applied and strategic 

dairy research and development in the areas of product technology and utilization, ingredient 

technology and utilization, products for health enhancement, food quality, and food safety.

Additional information link: California Dairy Foods Research Center.

California Dairy 

Research Foundation

Gonca Pasin, Ph.D. 

Executive Director

501 G Street, Ste. 203

Davis, CA 95616

California Polytechnic State 

University–San Luis Obispo 

Phillip S. Tong, Ph.D. 

Director, Dairy Products 

Technology Center

San Luis Obispo, CA 93407

University of California-Davis 

John C. Bruhn, Ph.D.

Director, Dairy Research & 

Information Center

One Shields Avenue

Davis, CA 95616-8598

MIDWEST DAIRY FOODS RESEARCH CENTER

The Midwest Dairy Foods Research Center conducts research to support the dairy industry 

utilizing resources within the University of Minnesota (St. Paul), South Dakota State University 

(Brookings), and Iowa State University (Ames). Research focuses on improving and controlling 

flavor development and functionality in cheese; improving the performance of cheese starter 

cultures through genetics; adding value to milk-based products with probiotics and 

nutraceuticals; improving shelf life of flavored milks; reducing undesirable taste attributes of 

milk; improving functionality and controlling flavor attributes of milk fractionation components; 

and developing methods for effective and profitable uses of whey. 

Additional information link: Midwest Dairy Foods Research Center.

Iowa State University-Ames

Department of Animal Science

1221 Kildee Hall 

Ames, IA 50011-3150

South Dakota State University

Lloyd Metzger, Ph.D. 

Director, Dairy Center, 

Box 2104

Brookings, SD 57007

University of Minnesota–St. 

Paul

Peggy Lehtola

Assistant Director, Midwest 

Dairy Foods Research Center

1334 Eckles Avenue

St. Paul, MN 55108

NORTHEAST DAIRY FOODS RESEARCH CENTER

The Northeast Dairy Foods Research Center located at Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, was

formed to conduct fluid milk and dairy ingredient research; dairy microbiology and safety; to 

provide applications and technical support for the improvements in milk powder quality, casein,

and whey protein research; and to help establish the next generation of dairy ingredients.

Additional information link: Northeast Dairy Foods Research Center.

1
Cornell University

Department of Food Science

Kathryn J. Boor, Ph.D.

Dean of Agriculture and Life Sciences

David M. Barbano, Ph.D.

Director, Northeast Dairy Center

118 Stocking Hall

Ithaca, NY 14853-7201

SOUTHEAST DAIRY FOODS RESEARCH CENTER

The Southeast Dairy Foods Research Center, with facilities and support at North Carolina State

University (Raleigh) and Mississippi State University (Starkville), has been operating since 1988

and actively participates in national research planning and execution on behalf of the dairy

industry. The center also hosts a Food Rheology Laboratory, Nutrition Technical Services

Laboratory, and a Sensory Applications Laboratory, conducting analytical, qualitative, and 

affective sensory tests and flavor chemistry analyses tailored to meet specific needs of the food 

industry.

Additional information link: Southeast Dairy Foods Research Center.

Mississippi State University

Department of Animal & Dairy Sciences

240 Wise Center Drive

Starkville, MS, 39762

North Carolina State University 

Todd Klaenhammer, Ph.D.

Dairy Center Director

100 Schaub Hall, Box 7624

Raleigh, NC 27695-7624

WESTERN DAIRY CENTER 

The Western Dairy Center’s primary location is Utah State University in Logan, with additional

resources available at Oregon State University, Washington State University, and the University 

of Idaho. The faculty has extensive expertise in dairy processing/production, microbiology, 

chemistry, and sensory analysis. Research focus includes cheese flavor and functionality; cheese 

technology; fermented products, including cheese and yogurt; ultra-high-temperature and 

extended-shelf-life fluid milk beverages; milk protein chemistry, including coagulation, 

denaturation, and separation; milk fractionation and use of membrane separation in dairy foods; 

anaerobic digestion of dairy processing waste; whey protein extrusion; application of genetics, 

genomics, and metabolomics to lactic acid bacteria; whey and milk utilization; and 

microstructure of dairy.

Additional information link: Western Dairy Center.

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

2
WISCONSIN CENTER FOR DAIRY RESEARCH

The Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research is located within a licensed, operating dairy plant on 

the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus. Building on Wisconsin’s tradition as the “Dairy 

State,” the center explores functional, flavor, and physical properties of cheese/cheese products 

and other milk components used as ingredients and as finished products. The center researches 

cheese making and dairy protein processing/separation procedures, use of dairy ingredients in 

foods, and technologies for product safety and quality. 

Additional information link: Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research.

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research

John Lucey, Ph.D., 

Director of Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research, 

1605 Linden Drive

Madison, WI 53706-1565

3
Appendix E-2

Dairy Foods Competitive Research Projects Active in 2012

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, INSTITUTION, AND PROJECT TITLE

Sanjeev Anand, Ph.D. (South Dakota State University): Inactivation of Spores in Nonfat Milk 

and Nonfat Milk Concentrates [continued in 2012]; Modifications of CIP Protocol to prevent and 

control Biofilms in Dairy Processing Environment [continued in 2012].

Sanjeev Anand, Ph.D. & Lloyd Metzger, Ph.D. (South Dakota State University): Role of 

Thermoduric and Thermophilic Sporeformers and the Biofilms in Cheese Spoilage [continued in 

2012]; Improve the Microbial Quality of Milk Powders by Controlling Thermally Resistant 

Spore Formers and Spores [began in 2012].

Stephanie Clark, Ph.D. (Iowa State University): Feasibility of Integrating Ultrasound into High 

Temperature Short Time Processing for Extended Shelf Life Milk [began in 2012].

Beate Crossley, Ph.D. (University of California-Davis): Rapid High-throughput Milk Assay 

Adaptable to Foot and Mouth Disease and Other Pathogens [began in 2012].

Christopher R. Daubert, Ph.D. (North Carolina State University): Rheological and 

Tribological Evaluation of Creaminess in Model Dairy Systems [continued in 2012].

Lars Dragsted, Ph.D. (University of Copenhagan): Additional Analyses for the Copenhagen 

Cheese Study [continued in 2012].

MaryAnne Drake, Ph.D. (North Carolina State University): Application of Milk Proteins for 

Greek Style Yogurts With Comparable or Superior Sensory and Nutritional Properties to 

Traditional Strained Greek Yogurts [continued in 2012]; Hydrolysis of Milk Powder Permeate 

and/or Milk for no Sugar Added Flavored Milk [continued in 2012]; Source of Salty Taste in 

Permeate [continued in 2012]; Understanding the Role of Beverage Processing Steps on Whey 

Protein Flavor Contributions [continued in 2012]; Annatto Partitioning in Cheese and Cheese 

Whey [began in 2012]; Influence of Spray-drying Parameters and the Lactoperoxidase System to 

Minimize Flavor Formation in Spray-dried Whey Protein [began in 2012]; The Influence of 

Processing Parameters on SMP Quality [began in 2012].

MaryAnne Drake, Ph.D. & Donald McMahon, Ph.D. (North Carolina State University & 

Utah State University): At What Salt Level Do Consumers Notice Decreasing Salt 

Concentrations and at What Concentration Is Acceptance Negatively Impacted? [continued in 

2012].

Mark R. Etzel, Ph.D. (University of Wisconsin-Madison): Charged Ultrafiltration Membranes 

for Fractionation of Milk Proteins [continued in 2012]; Electrostatic Repulsion Enhancement for 

Heat Stable, Clear Whey Protein Beverages [continued in 2012].

4
Appendix E-2, continued

Mark R. Etzel, Ph.D., Thatcher W. Root Ph.D., Abhiram Arunkumar, & Seyhun Gemili

(University of Wisconsin-Madison): Methods and Compositions Involving Whey Protein 

Isolates [completed in 2012].

Michael Fenech, Ph.D. (CSIRO Food and Nutritional Sciences – Australia): Bovine Milk’s 

Potential as a Functional Food for DNA Damage Control [continued in 2012].

Arny Ferrando, Ph.D. (University of Arkansas): Effect of Dietary Protein Intake Pattern on 

Skeletal Muscle in Older Individuals [continued in 2012]; Dairy Macronutrient Effects on the 

Metabolic Syndrome [began in 2012].

Roger Fielding, Ph.D. (Tufts University): Efficacy of Whey Protein Supplementation on 

Resistance Exercise Induced Changes in Muscle Strength, Fat Free Mass, and Function in 

Mobility-Limited Older Adults [completed in 2012].

Allen E. Foegeding, Ph.D. (North Carolina State University): Developing Whey Proteins 

Having Less Astringency at Low pH [continued in 2012].

Allen E. Foegeding, Ph.D. & Bongkosh Vardhanabhuti, Ph.D. (North Carolina State 

University & University of Missouri): Functional Whey Protein Ingredients Based on Designed 

Aggregates [continued in 2012].

Dr. Bruce German, Ph.D (University of California-Davis): Characterization and Function of 

Milk Glycopeptides [continued in 2012]; Identification of Mammary Gland Regulatory Clusters 

in Bovine Genome [completed in 2012].

Kathy Glass, Ph.D. (University of Wisconsin-Madison): Enhancing the Microbiological Safety 

and Quality of Reduced Sodium Cheese with Natural Preservatives or Adjunct Cultures

[continued in 2012]; Inhibition of Clostridium Botulinum in Reduced-Sodium Pasteurized 

Cheese Products [continued in 2012].

Julie M. Goddard, Ph.D. (University of Massachusetts Amherst): Non-fouling Stainless Steel 

for Dairy Processing [began in 2012].

Selvarani Govindasamy-Lucey, Ph.D. (Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research): Low Sodium 

Cheddar Cheese by Controlling Microbial Activity and Enhancing Flavor [continued in 2012]; 

and Development/Validation of Alternative Methods for Rapid Sodium Testing in Cheese

[continued in 2012].

Federico Harte, Ph.D. (University of Tennessee): Manufacturing of Low Spores, Low-heat 

Milk Powders for Various Food and Beverage Applications [continued in 2012]; Product 

Development by the Modification of Casein Micelles Size and Stability [continued in 2012].

5
Appendix E-2, continued

Federico Harte, Ph.D. & Juan Luis Jurat-Fuentes, Ph.D. (University of Tennessee): Nanostructure and Hydrophobic Binding Properties of the Casein Micelle [completed in 2012].

Richard W. Hartel, Ph.D. (University of Wisconsin): Pro-Cream/DLP Blends: Functionality 

and Applications [began in 2012].

Mathew Hayes Ph.D. (University of Pennsylvania): Effects of Dairy Macronutrients on 

Glucogo-like-Peptide-1 Receptor Mediated Suppression of Food Intake and Blood Glucose 

Regulation [continued in 2012].

James O. Hill, M.D. (University of Colorado): America On the Move Family Program for 

Weight Gain Prevention [completed in 2012].

Rafael Jimenez-Flores, Ph.D. (University of California-Davis): Developing Milk ProteinBased Structures for New Dairy Products [continued in 2012]; Developing Milk Protein 

[continued in 2012]; Measuring Kinetics of Milk [continued in 2012]; Phenolic Extraction for 

Coffee [continued in 2012]; Pulsed-Light on Spores [continued in 2012].

Mark Johnson, Ph.D. (Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research): Development and Removal of 

Biofilms in a Pasteurizer [continued in 2012].

Kerry Kaylegian, Ph.D. (Pennsylvania State University): Reduction of the Saturated Fat 

Content of Milk Fat Fractions by Dry Crystallization of Anhydrous Milk Fat Made from Small 

and Large Milk Fat Globules Obtained by Microfiltration [began in 2012].

Todd Klaenhammer, Ph.D. (North Carolina State University): Genetics of Lactic Acid Bacteria 

and Their Bacteriophages [continued in 2012].

Theodore P. Labuza, Ph.D. (University of Minnesota): Develop Rapid and Simple Detection 

Methods for Dairy Proteins [began in 2012].

Donald McMahon, Ph.D. (Utah State University): Adapt Terbium Measurement of Spores for 

use during Milk Processing [began in 2012].

Donald McMahon, Ph.D., Jeff Broadbent, Ph.D., Balasubramanian Ganesan, Ph.D., 

MaryAnne Drake, Ph.D., James L. Steele, Ph.D., Nana Y. Farkye, Ph.D. (Utah State 

University, North Carolina State University, University of Wisconsin-Madison, California 

Polytechnic State University): A Systematic Study of Cheese Microbiology and Flavor Based on 

Salt Cation Substitution in Lower Sodium Cheddar Cheese [continued in 2012].

Donald McMahon, Ph.D. & Allen E. Foegeding, Ph.D. (Utah State University & North 

Carolina State University): Designing Filler Particles to Imitate Fat in Cheddar Cheese

[continued in 2012]; Filled Gel Model for the Role of Fat in Cheese [continued in 2012].

6
Appendix E-2, continued

Lloyd Metzger, Ph.D. & Donald McMahon, Ph.D. (South Dakota State University & Utah 

State University): Concentration, Storage Stability, and Functionality of Highly Concentrated 

Micellar Casein [continued in 2012]. 

Carmen Moraru, Ph.D. (Cornell University): Development of Pulsed Light Based Combination 

Surface Treatments as a Non-thermal Strategy for Microbial Inactivation on Cheese Surface 

[continued in 2012].

Charles Onwulata, Ph.D. (USDA Agricultural Research Service): Long-term Shelf Life Studies 

of Whey Protein Concentrates (WPC 34 and WPC 80) Under Adverse Storage Conditions

[continued in 2012].

Hasmukh Patel, Ph.D. & Lloyd Metzger, Ph.D. (South Dakota State University): To Improve 

the Quality of Milk Powder by Developing Strategies to Minimize the Increase in Viscosity of 

Milk Concentrate with High Total Solids Milk [began in 2012].

Devin Peterson, Ph.D. (University of Minnesota): Identification of Taste Compounds in 

Cheddar Cheese: Strategies for Flavor Improvement [continued in 2012].

Robert F. Roberts, Ph.D. (Pennsylvania State University): Influence of Delivery System on the 

Efficacy of a Probiotic Intervention [continued in 2012].

Karen Smith, Ph.D. (University of Wisconsin-Madison): Benchmarking Study to Evaluate 

Quality and Performance Gaps in U.S. and International NDM/SMP [continued in 2012]; 

Fractionating Acid Whey Into Value-added Ingredients for U.S. in Cultured Dairy Products

[began in 2012].

Hirofumi Tanaka, Ph.D. (University of Texas): Hypotensive Effects of Conventional Dairy 

Products: Role of Arterial Stiffness [continued in 2012].

Phillip S. Tong, Ph.D. (California Polytechnic State University): Improving SMP/NFDM 

Processing, Microbiological Quality, and Functionality Through Process and Ingredient

Technologies That Change Mineral Composition and Activity [continued in 2012]; Effect of 

NaCl addition during diafiltration on the solubility, hydrophobicity, and disulphide bonds of 80% 

milk protein concentrate powder [completed in 2012].

Bongkosh Vardhanabhuti, Ph.D. (University of Missouri): Improved Cold Gelation Properties 

by Heated Whey Protein and Polysaccharide Soluble Complexes [continued in 2012].

7
Appendix E-2, continued

Martin Wiedmann, Ph.D., DVM (Cornell University): Consumer Sensory Perception of 

Pasteurized Fluid Milk over Shelf-life [continued in 2012]; Survey of Mesophilic and 

Thermophilic Sporeformers in Dairy Powders and Raw Milk Across the U.S. [continued in

2012]; A Systems Approach to Reducing Spore Contamination in Dairy Powders 

[continued in 2012].

Michael B. Zemel, Ph.D. (University of Tennessee): Effects of Dairy Consumption on SIRT1 

and Metabolic Risk in Humans [completed in 2012]; Modulation of Human Airway Smooth 

Muscle Function [continued in 2012].

Qixin Zhong, Ph.D. (University of Tennessee): Creating Novel Structures to Stabilize Whey 

Proteins during Heating Nearby Isoelectric Points [continued in 2012]; Dairy Protein-based 

Antimicrobial Delivery System to Improve the Microbial Safety of Dairy Products [began in 

2012]; Hydrocolloids for Improved Recovery and Utilization of Lactose [began in 2012]; 

Physical Removal of Annatto in Cheddar Cheese Whey by Inert Absorbents [began in 2012].

Qixin Zhong, Ph.D and MaryAnne Drake, Ph.D. (University of Tennessee and North Carolina 

State University): Shelf-stable Whey-protein-based High-protein Beverages [continued in 2012].

8
Appendix E-3

Nutrition Competitive Research Activities in 2012

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, INSTITUTION, AND PROJECT TITLE

Arne Astrup, M.D., Ph.D. (University of Copenhagen): Health effects of a high cheese intake –

Does maturation and fat content matter? [continued in 2012].

Daniela Barile, Ph.D. (University of California-Davis): Effectiveness of Bovine Milk 

Oligosaccharides in Modifying Gastrointestinal Function in Healthy Individuals [completed in 

2012].

Bradley W. Bolling, Ph.D. (University of Connecticut): Reduction of Obesity-Associated 

Intestinal Inflammation by Low-Fat Dairy Yogurt [began in 2012].

Richard Bruno, Ph.D. (Ohio State University): Vasoprotective Activities of Low-fat Milk in 

Individuals with Metabolic Syndrome [continued in 2012]; Dairy Fat as a Mediator of Vitamin E 

Adequacy in Individuals with Metabolic Syndrome [began in 2012].

Kimberlee Burrington (Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research): Characterization of Commercial 

Hydrolyzed Whey Protein and Milk Protein Concentrate Ingredients in Nutrition in Nutrition 

Bars and Beverages [continued in 2012].

In-Young Choi, M.D. (University of Kansas): Dairy Intake and Brain Health in Aging

[continued in 2012].

Sharon Donovan, Ph.D. & Barbara Fiese, Ph.D. (University of Illinois at Urbana -

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

[began in 2012].

Adam Drewnowski, Ph.D. (University of Kansas): Meeting U.S. Dietary Guidelines for 

Calcium: The Role of Dairy Foods [continued in 2012].

Nana Y. Farkye, Ph.D. (University of California-Davis): A Systematic Study of Cheese 

Microbiology and Flavor Based on Salt Cation Substitution in Lower Sodium Cheddar Cheese

[continued in 2012]; Effects of Salt Substitutes and Anti-Microbial Intervention Methods on 

Functionality and Shelf Life of Low Sodium String Cheese and the Survival of Pathogenic 

Bacteria [continued in 2012].

Allen E. Foegeding, Ph.D. and R. Jimenez-Flores, Ph.D. (North Carolina State University & 

California Polytechnic State University): Developing Milk-protein-based Structures for New

Dairy Products [began in 2012].

Victor L. Fulgoni III, M.D. (Nutrition Impact LLC): Milkfat and Carbohydrate Intake Effects 

on Lipid Levels (NHANES) [completed in 2012]; Dairy at Breakfast and Breakfast Patterns 

Analysis [completed in 2012].

9
Appendix E-3, continued

Selvarani Govindasamy-Lucey, Ph.D., Mark Johnson, Ph.D., John A. Lucey, Ph.D., and

John Jaeggi (University of Wisconsin): Manufacture of a Low-sodium, Mild-flavored Cheese

Suitable for Ingredient Purposes by a Curd Heating Process [began in 2012].

Kevin Heffernan, Ph.D. (Syracuse University) Efficacy of Whey Protein to Improve 

Cerebrovascular and Cognitive Function in Older Adults [began in 2012].

Karl L. Insogna, M.D. (Yale University): The Impact of a Protein Supplement on Bone Mass in 

Older Men and Women [continued in 2012].

Rachel Johnson, Ph.D., MPH, RD. (University of Vermont): Evaluating the Acceptance of 

Reformulated Flavored Milk in Schools [continued in 2012].

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 [continued in 2012].

Buddhi Lamsal, Ph.D. (Iowa State University): Milk Protein Concentrates (MPC) Modification 

and Evaluation for Potential Applications [continued in 2012].

Danielle Lemay, Ph.D. (University of California-Davis): Translating the Science of Milk 

Genomics [Completed in 2012].

John A. Lucey, Ph.D. (University of Wisconsin): Development/validation of alternative 

methods for rapid sodium testing in cheese [continued in 2012].

Kevin Maki, Ph.D. (Biofortis-Provident Clinical Research): A Randomized, Controlled Trial to 

Assess the Effects of Low-fat Dairy Intake on Endothelial Function and Blood Pressure in 

Subjects with Pre-hypertension or Stage-1 Hypertension [completed in 2012]; Effect of Dairy

Beverages on Insulin Sensitivity and Beta Cell Function in Men and Women at Risk for Diabetes

[began in 2012].

Maria Marco, Ph.D. (University of California-Davis): Does Milk Matter? The Importance of 

Milk for Probiotics Lactobacillus casein Performance in the Gut [completed in 2012].

Lloyd Metzger, Ph.D. (South Dakota State University): Manufacture of Modified MPC 

Utilizing Injection of Carbon Dioxide [continued in 2012]; Development of Modified Milk 

Protein Concentrates as an Alternative to Rennet Casein [began in 2012].

Lynn L. Moore, Ph.D. (Boston University): Dairy Risk of Hypertension: Framingham 

Offspring and PREMIER Studies [continued in 2012]; Dietary Sodium and Blood Pressure in 

Adolescent Girls [began in 2012].

10
Appendix E-3, continued

Theresa Nicklas, Ph.D. (Baylor University): Healthy Eating and Lifestyle for Total Health 

(HEALTH) [continued in 2012].

Sharon Nickols-Richardson, Ph.D. (Pennsylvania State University): Does a Dairy-rich Diet 

Modify Indicators of Inflammatory and Oxidative Stress in Adults with Excess Adiposity [began 

in 2012].

Stefan M. Pasiakos, Ph.D. (U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine):

Comparative Effects of Milk- and Soy-based Diets on Musculoskeletal Health and Glucose 

Homeostasis during Prolonged Energy Restriction in Rats [continued in 2012].

Anne Raben, Ph.D. (University of Copenhagen): The Effects of Dairy Intake on Weight Regain and Risk Markers of Diabetes and Cardiovascular Diseases [continued in 2012].

Nancy Rodriguez, Ph.D., RD, FACSM (University of Connecticut): Novel Approaches to 

Maintain Muscle Mass with Aging: Benefits of Yoga and Higher-protein Intakes in Middle-aged 

Men and Women [continued in 2012]. 

Michael J. Saunders, Ph.D. (James Madison University): Tolerance to Intensified Cycle 

Training and Subsequent Adaptations: Influence of Chocolate Milk Dairy Protein 

Supplementation [began in 2012].

Karen Schmidt, Ph.D. (Kansas State University): Radio Frequency Dielectric Heating (RFDH): 

A Process Lethality Treatment That Impacts Unique Functionality in Dried Dairy Powders

[continued in 2012].

Tonya Schoenfuss, Ph.D. (University of Minnesota): Production of Low-sodium Cheddar 

Cheese: Improving Flavor Through the use of Flavor Enhancers, Salt Replacers and Cheesemaking Procedures [completed in 2012]; Evaluating the Efficiency of the Production of 

Intrinsically Labeled Milk Protein Products [continued in 2012].

Sabita Soedamah-Muthu, Ph.D. (Wageningen University): Meta-analysis on Effects of Cheese 

Consumption on Blood Lipids and Lipoproteins [began in 2012]; Cheese and Fermented Dairy 

Intake Is Associated with Improved Glucose Regulation - a Risk Factor for Type 2 Diabetes

[completed 2012].

Gloria Solano-Aguilar, Ph.D. (USDA Agricultural Research Service): Effects of Milk Fat on 

Obesity-Mediated changes in Gastrointestinal Function and Microflora Composition [continued 

in 2012].

Dean Sommer, Scott A. Rankin Ph.D., and Arnoldo Lopez-Hernandez (Wisconsin Center for

Dairy Research): Evidence for Methylglyoxal-mediated Browning of Parmesan cheese during 

Low Temperature Storage [completed in 2012].

11
Appendix E-3, continued

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 [began in 

2012].

Laura L. Tosi, M.D., (Children's Research Institute): A Systems Biology Analysis of the 

Impact of Dairy and Calcium Intake on Type 2 Diabetes Associated Phenotypes [began in 2012].

Marta Van Loan, Ph.D. (USDA Agricultural Research Service): Milk Versus Calcium Citrate 

and Vitamin D Supplements for Bone Health in Postmenopausal Women [continued in 2012].

Jeff Volek, Ph.D. (University of Connecticut): Effect of Incremental Increases in Dietary 

Carbohydrate on Saturated Fat Levels in Blood Borne Risk Markers for Cardiovascular Disease 

[continued in 2012]. 

Robert Ward, Ph.D. (Utah State University): Effect of Milkfat Globule Membrane on Gut 

Barrier Protection in Runners [continued in 2012]; Effect of dairy product consumption on 

cognitive performance among elderly participants of the Cache County Study on Memory Health 

and Aging [continued in 2012]; Effects of Consuming Bioactive Yogurt on Endotoxemia

and Markers of Metabolic Syndrome [began in 2012].

Richard A. Washburn, Ph.D. (University of Kansas): Whey Protein Supplementation with 

Resistance Training: Effect on Body Composition of Young Adults [continued in 2012].

Connie Weaver, Ph.D. (Purdue University): Does High Calcium Exacerbate Atherosclerosis

[began in 2012].

Angela Zivkovic, Ph.D. (University of California-Davis): Effects of Dairy Fat on Postprandial 

Inflammation [continued in 2012].

12
Appendix E-4

Sustainability Competitive Research Activities in 2012

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, INSTITUTION, AND PROJECT TITLE

Albert J. Heber, Ph.D. (Purdue University): Assessment of Carbon Footprint Contributions to 

Milk Products by U.S. Dairies [continued in 2012]; Greenhouse Gas Emissions at U.S. Dairies 

[continued in 2012]; Evaluation and Analysis of NAEMS Dairy Barn and Area Source 

Emissions Data [began in 2012].

Olivier Jolliet, Ph.D. (University of Michigan): U.S. Fluid Milk: Beyond Carbon LCA Study 

[continued in 2012].

Dennis Keiser, Ph.D. (University of Idaho): Market Potential of Value Added Products from 

Anaerobic Digester Systems on U.S. Dairy Farms [continued in 2012].

Jan Lassen, Ph.D., Peter Lovendahl, Ph.D., & Jørgen Madsen Ph.D. (University of 

Copenhagen and Aarhus University): Accuracy of noninvasive breath methane measurements 

using Fourier transform infrared methods on individual cows [completed in 2012].

Deanne Meyer, Ph.D. (University of California-Davis): Environmental Stewardship Component 

of the California Dairy Quality Assurance Program [completed in 2012]. 

MIT Sloan Management Review & The Boston Consulting Group (Massachusetts Institute 

of Technology): Sustainability on Companies’ Management Agenda to Stay [completed in 

2012].

Greg Thoma, Ph.D. (University of Arkansas): Comprehensive Life Cycle Assessment for Fluid 

Dairy Delivery Systems [continued in 2012].

13
Appendix F

Qualified State, Regional or Importer

Dairy Product Promotion, Research, or Nutrition Education Programs

Allied Milk Producers’ Cooperative

495 Blough Road

Hooversville, PA 15936–8207

American Dairy Association MidEast

5950 Sharon Woods Blvd.

Columbus, OH 43229

American Dairy Association and Dairy 

Council, Inc.

Interstate Place II, 100 Elwood Road

North Syracuse, NY 13212

American Dairy Association of Alabama

5340 West Fayetteville Road

Atlanta, GA 30349–5416

American Dairy Association of Georgia

5340 West Fayetteville Road

Atlanta, GA 30349–5416

American Dairy Association of Kentucky

5340 West Fayetteville Road

Atlanta, GA 30349–5416

American Dairy Association of Michigan

2163 Jolly Road

Okemos, MI 48864 

American Dairy Association of Mississippi

5340 West Fayetteville Road

Atlanta, GA 30349–5416

American Dairy Association of Nebraska

8205 F Street

Omaha, NE 68127–1779

American Dairy Association of 

North Carolina

5340 West Fayetteville Road

Atlanta, GA 30349–5416

American Dairy Association of

South Carolina

5340 West Fayetteville Road

Atlanta, GA 30349–5416

American Dairy Association of 

South Dakota

2015 Rice Street

St. Paul, MN 55113

American Dairy Association of

Virginia

5340 West Fayetteville Road

Atlanta, GA 30349–5416

California Manufacturing Milk

Producers Advisory Board

3800 Cornucopia Way, Suite D

Modesto, CA 95358–9492

California Milk Producers 

Advisory Board

3800 Cornucopia Way, Suite D

Modesto, CA 95358–9492

Connecticut Milk Promotion Board

165 Capital Avenue

Hartford, CT 06106

Dairy Council of California

1101 National Drive, Suite B

Sacramento, CA 95834–1945

Dairy Council of Michigan

2163 Jolly Road

Okemos, MI 48864

Dairy Council of Nebraska

8205 F Street

Omaha, NE 68127–1779

1
Appendix F, continued

Dairy Food Nutrition Council of the

Southeast

5340 West Fayetteville Road

Atlanta, GA 30349–5416

DairyMAX

2214 Paddock Way Drive, Suite 600

Grand Prairie, TX 75050

Dairy Promotion, Inc.

10220 NW Ambassador Drive

Kansas City, MO 64153

Florida Dairy Farmers

166 Lookout Place, Suite 100

Maitland, FL 32751–4496

Georgia Agricultural Commodity 

Commission for Milk

19 Martin Luther King Jr., Dr., SW, Room 328

Atlanta, GA 30334

Granite State Dairy Promotion

c/o New Hampshire Department of Agriculture

25 Capitol Street, Box 2042

Concord, NH 03302–2042

Idaho Dairy Products Commission

10221 West Emerald, Suite 180

Boise, ID 83704

Illinois Milk Promotion Board

1701 Towanda Avenue

Bloomington, IL 61701

Indiana Dairy Industry Development Board

9360 Castlegate Drive

Indianapolis, IN 46256

Kansas Dairy Commission 

2545 294th Rd.

Muscotah, KS 66058

Louisiana Dairy Industry Promotion Board

c/o Louisiana Department of 

Agriculture and Forestry

47076 North Morrison Street

Hammond, LA 70401 

Maine Dairy and Nutrition Council

333 Cony Road

Augusta, ME 04330

Maine Dairy Promotion Board

333 Cony Road

Augusta, ME 04330

Massachusetts Dairy Promotion Board

Suite 500, 251 Causeway Street

Boston, MA 02114

Michigan Dairy Market Program

P.O. Box 8002

Novi, MI 48376–8002 

Mid–Atlantic Dairy Association

325 Chestnut Street, Suite 600

Philadelphia, PA 19106

Midwest Dairy Association

2015 Rice Street

St. Paul, MN 55113 

Midwest Dairy Council

2015 Rice Street

St. Paul, MN 55113 

Milk for Health on the Niagara Frontier, Inc.

4185 Seneca Street

West Seneca, NY 14224

Milk Industry Development Fund of

Puerto Rico/Fondo para el Fomento de la 

Industria Lechera

P.O. Box 360454

San Juan, PR 00936-0454

2
Appendix F, continued

Milk Promotion Services of Indiana, Inc.

9360 Castlegate Drive

Indianapolis, IN 46256

Minnesota Dairy Research and Promotion 

Council

2015 Rice Street

St. Paul, MN 55113

Nebraska Dairy Industry Development 

Board

8205 F Street

Omaha, NE 68127–1779

Nevada Farm Bureau Dairy Producers

Committee

2165 Green Vista Drive, Suite 205

Sparks, NV 89431

New England Dairy and Food Council, Inc.

1034 Commonwealth Avenue

Boston, MA 02215

New England Dairy Promotion Board

1034 Commonwealth Avenue

Boston, MA 02215

New Jersey Dairy Industry Advisory Council 

c/o New Jersey Dept. of Agriculture

PO Box 330

Trenton, NJ 08625–0330

New York State Dept. of Agriculture and

Markets, 

Division of Milk Control and Dairy Services

10 B Airline Drive

Albany, NY 12235–0001

North Dakota Dairy Promotion Commission

2015 Rice Street

St. Paul, MN 55113

Oregon Dairy Products Commission

10505 Southwest Barbur Boulevard

Portland, OR 97219

Pennsylvania Dairy Promotion Program

c/o Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture

2301 North Cameron Street

Harrisburg, PA 17110–9408

Promotion Services, Inc.

5340 West Fayetteville Road

Atlanta, GA 30349–5416

Rochester Health Foundation, Inc.

c/o American Dairy Association and 

Dairy Council, Inc.

Interstate Place II, 100 Elwood Road

North Syracuse, NY 13212

St. Louis District Council

1254 Hanley Industrial Court

St. Louis, MO 63144-1912

Southeast United Dairy Industry Association

5340 West Fayetteville Road

Atlanta, GA 30349–5416

Southwest Dairy Museum

P.O. Box 936

Sulphur Springs, TX 75483

Tennessee Dairy Promotion Committee

5340 West Fayetteville Road

Atlanta, GA 30349–5416

United Dairymen of Arizona

2008 S. Hardy Drive

Tempe, AZ 85282

Utah Dairy Commission

1213 East 2100 South

Salt Lake City, UT 84106

3
Vermont Dairy Promotion Council

116 State Street, Drawer 20

Montpelier, VT 05620–2901

Washington State Dairy Council

4201 198th Street, SW, Suite 102

Lynnwood, WA 98036–6751

Washington State Dairy Products 

Commission

4201 198th Street, SW, Suite 101

Lynnwood, WA 98036

Western Dairy Association

12000 North Washington Street, Suite 200

Thornton, CO 80241

Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board, Inc.

8418 Excelsior Drive

Madison, WI 53717

Cheese Importers Association of America

(Importer Qualified Program)

204 E Street, NE

Washington, DC 20002

Global Dairy Platform

(Importer Qualified Program)

10255 West Higgins, Suite 800

Rosemont, IL 60018

Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board and

Wisconsin Dairy Producers

(Importer Qualified Program)

8418 Excelsior Drive

Madison, WI 53717

4
Appendix G

National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board

Milk Mustache Posters – Refuel

1
Appendix G, Continued

Milk Mustache Posters – The Breakfast Project

 

2
Appendix G, Continued

Milk Mustache Posters – The Breakfast Project and Halloween

 

3
Appendix G, Continued

Milk Mustache Posters – The Breakfast Project

4
Appendix G, Continued

Milk Mustache Posters – The Breakfast Project - Super Bowl

5
Region 1

[2]

Region 2

[7]

Region 3

[2]

Region 4

[4]

Region 5

[2]

Region 6

[5]

Region 7

[2]

Region 8

[2]

Region 10

[2]

Region 11

[2]

Appendix H-1

Regions of the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board

Note: The number in brackets below each region

indicates the number of members within that region.

Effective December 23, 2011.

Region 12

[3]

Region 9

[3]
Appendix H-2

 Regions of the National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board

Region 13

Region 14

Region 15

Region 12

Region 7

Region 11

Region 10

Region 8

Region 2

Region 1

Region 3 Region 6

Region 9 Region 4

Region 5

2