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

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Report to Congress 

on the 

Dairy Promotion and 

Research Program 

and the 

Fluid Milk 

Processor Promotion Program 

2019 Activities 

August 2022 
 

Contact Information 

Promotion, Research, and Planning Division 

USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service, Dairy Program 

Stop, 0233, Room 2958-South 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20250-0233 

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

Oral Capps, Jr., PhD 

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

Consumer Economics Research Center 

Texas A&M University 

Department of Agricultural Economics 

2124 TAMU 

College Station, TX 77843 

(979) 845-5911 

Email: AFCERC@tamu.edu 

http://AFCERC.tamu.edu 

National Dairy Promotion and Research Board 

Dairy Management Inc. 

10255 West Higgins Road, Suite 900 

Rosemont, IL 60018 

(847) 803-2000 

1 
http://www.usdairy.com 

National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board 

1250 H Street NW, Suite 950 

Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 737-0153 

http://www.milklife.com 

2 
 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program 

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

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

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

information may be made available in languages other than English. 

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

Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at 

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. 

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

USDA over other similar products not named. 

July 2022 

4 
 

Contents 

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

Executive Summary........................................................................................6 

Chapter 1: The Dairy and Fluid Milk Promotion Programs............................................8 

Chapter 2: USDA Activities..............................................................................14 

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

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

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

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

Nutrition Education Programs..............................................................................52 

Additional Information: 2019 Approved Contracts, National Dairy Foods Research Centers, 

Research Activities, and Audits............................................................................60 

5 
 

 

 

 

Executive Summary 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

noted, this report addresses program activities for January 1 through December 31, 2019, of the 

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

Dairy Promotion and Research Program 

Mandatory assessments collected under the Dairy Act totaled $344.1 million in 2019. The Dairy 

Board portion of assessments totaled $114.7 million, and the Qualified Dairy Product Promotion, 

Research, or Nutrition Education Programs (QPs) totaled $229.4 million. Expenditures by the 

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

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

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

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

new places for dairy product consumption. 

6 
 

 

 

 

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

can be found in Chapter 4. 

Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Program 

Mandatory assessments collected under the Fluid Milk Act totaled $83.2 million in 2019. The 

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

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

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

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

the contiguous 48 States and the District of Columbia. 

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

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

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

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

section in Chapter 1. 

USDA Activities 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional USDA responsibilities include nominating and appointing board members, amending 

7 
 

 

 

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

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

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

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

Independent Analysis 

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

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

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

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

In addition, Chapter 3 presents the combined effects of 2019 promotion activities on the 

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

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

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

milk - $3.26; (2) cheese - $3.62; (3) butter – $24.40. The BCR for fluid milk processors 

attributed to fluid milk promotion activities is $3.28. 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

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. 

I. National Dairy Promotion and Research Board 

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

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

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

approving budgets, and monitoring the program results. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dairy Board’s administrative budget continued to be within the five-percent-of-revenue limit 

required by the Dairy Order. An independent auditor’s report for 2019 can be found in the 

Additional Information section of this report. 

9 
 

 

 

 

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

Committee. The Finance Committee is chaired by the Dairy Board Treasurer and consists of the 

Dairy Board officers and appointees named by the Dairy Board Chair. The full Dairy Board 

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

committees with the United Dairy Industry Association (UDIA). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

During 2019, DMI continued to implement a national staffing structure to plan and execute the 

national programs. 

DMI funds one- to three-year research projects supporting marketing efforts. Six Dairy Foods 

Research Centers and one Nutrition Institute provided much of the research in 2019. Universities 

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

10 
 

 

 

A description of the research objectives and locations can be found in the Additional Information 

section of this report. 

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

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

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

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

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

priorities, plan activities and projects, and evaluate results. During 2019, the Dairy Board and 

UDIA Board met jointly six times. 

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

marketing strategies for the unified dairy promotion plan in 2019. These forums were designed 

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

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

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

in 2019, see the DMI annual report at https://www.usdairy.com/getmedia/6eb89e24-6334-42cc8514-621a01eb2a85/2019-Annual-Report-FINAL.pdf?ext=.pdf 

II. National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board 

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

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

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

11 
 

 

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

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

purpose of 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 the other five members are atlarge. Of the five at-large members, at least three must be fluid milk processors and at least one 

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

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

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

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

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

activities of the Fluid Milk Board. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fluid Milk Board met three times in 2019 to conduct board business and once to welcome 

their new Chief Executive Officer (CEO). 

12 
 

 

 

On September 18, 2019, MilkPEP announced the selection of Ms. Yin Woon Rani as their new 

CEO. Ms. Rani joined MilkPEP after 20 years in the advertising and marketing industry, most 

recently as the Vice President, Chief Customer Experience Officer for the Campbell Soup 

Company. 

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

audit. The Fluid Milk Board’s administrative budget continued to be within the five percent-ofrevenue limit required by the Fluid Milk Order. An independent auditor’s report for 2019 can be 

found in the Additional Information section of this report. 

For more information on the Fluid Milk Board activities and initiatives implemented in 2019, see 

the Milk PEP annual report at https://milkpep.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Annual-Report2019-FINAL.pdf. 

13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 2 

USDA Activities 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

promotion funds are consistent with the enabling legislation and Orders, certifies Qualified 

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

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

collection, compliance, and enforcement actions. 

Other AMS Dairy Program responsibilities include facilitating the nomination and appointment 

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

communications, and conducting periodic management reviews. AMS Dairy Program 

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

programs. 

14 
 

 

 

Dairy Promotion and Research Program Oversight 

Collections 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contracts 

The Dairy Act and Dairy Order require that contracts that expend assessments funds be approved 

by the Secretary. During 2019, the AMS Dairy Program reviewed and approved 504 Dairy Board 

and DMI agreements, amendments, and annual plans. During 2019, DMI retained the certified 

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

Edelman, Inc.; sparks & honey, LLC; Darigold, Inc.; Board of Regents of the University of 

Wisconsin; and Market Makers, Inc. No material exceptions were found. 

USDA Foreign Agricultural Service 

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

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

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

15 
 

 

 

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

conformance with the Dairy Act and Dairy Order and with established USDA policies. In 2019, 

the AMS Dairy Program reviewed and approved 80 USDEC agreements, amendments, and 

annual plans. 

Organic Exemption 

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

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

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

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

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

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

organic dairy producers are exempt only from the Federal assessment, organic producers are still 

responsible for the remittance of State assessments. In 2019, the amount of exempted 

assessments was $1,672,406. The Dairy Order requires organic producers to re-apply annually to 

continue to receive the exemption. 

USDA Dairy Promotion and Research Program Expenses 

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

for the cost of administrative oversight and compliance audit activities. In 2019, the AMS Dairy 

Program’s oversight expenses totaled $791,370, and the Federal Milk Market Administrators 

incurred $246,420 in expenses for verification audits conducted on behalf of the Dairy Board. 

16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Qualified Programs 

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

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

were active programs prior to the Dairy Act. In 2019, the AMS Dairy Program reviewed 

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

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

Programs, the AMS Dairy Program obtained and reviewed income and expenditure data from 

each Qualified Program, and data reported are included in aggregate for 2019 in Chapter 4. 

National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board Oversight 

Program Development 

The Fluid Milk Board contracted with Arc USA Chicago and the Interpublic Group Agencies of 

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

advertising, promotion, and consumer education in connection with the national fluid milk 

campaign. 

Collections 

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

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

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

17 
 

 

 

 

Contracts 

The Fluid Milk Act and Fluid Milk Order require that budgets and contracts that expend 

assessments be approved by the Secretary. During 2019, the AMS Dairy Program approved 113 

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

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

Cohn), in 2019 to audit the records of Campbell Ewald, Arc USA Chicago, and CMGRP, Inc., 

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

Organic Exemption 

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

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

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

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

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

(80 FR 82005, published December 31, 2015). In 2019, the amount of exempted fluid milk 

assessments was approximately $2,139,670. The Fluid Order requires organic fluid milk 

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

USDA Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Program Expenses 

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

administrative oversight and compliance audit activities. In 2019, the AMS Dairy Program’s 

oversight expenses totaled $515,754, and the Federal Milk Market Administrators incurred 

$122,406 in expenses for verification audits conducted on behalf of the Fluid Milk Board. 

18 
 

 

Chapter 3 

Quantitative Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Promotion Activities by the 

National Dairy Promotion and Research Program and the National Fluid 

Milk Processor Promotion Program – 1995 to 2019 

Introduction 

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

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

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

conduct this study. This chapter is a summary of the 2019 quantitative evaluation of the 

effectiveness of the dairy and fluid milk promotion programs. 

Background on the Promotion Program 

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

coordinated national research and promotion program intended to maintain and expand domestic 

and foreign markets for fluid milk and dairy products. To fund the program, U.S. dairy producers 

pay a 15-cent-per-hundredweight assessment on milk marketing, and importers pay a 7.5-centper-hundredweight assessment, or the equivalent thereof, on dairy products imported into the 

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

undertaking between the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board (Dairy Board) and the 

United Dairy Industry Association (UDIA). UDIA is a federation of 19 of the 64 Qualified 

Programs1 (QPs) under the direction of a board of directors. DMI’s mission is to drive increased 

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

19 
 

 

 

 

sales of and demand for dairy products and ingredients on behalf of dairy producers and dairy 

importers. DMI works proactively in partnership with leaders and innovators to increase and 

apply knowledge that leverages opportunities to expand dairy markets. 

The Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Program develops, and finances generic advertising 

programs designed to maintain and expand markets for fluid milk products produced in the 

United States. Fluid milk processors marketing more than 3 million pounds of fluid milk per 

month pay a 20-cent-per-hundredweight assessment on fluid milk processed and marketed in 

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

Processor Education Program (MilkPEP) is the staffing organization that carries out the 

promotion programs on behalf of the Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Program. 

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

the Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Program, funded by fluid milk processors, are hereinafter 

referred to jointly as the National Programs. 

Objectives of the Evaluation Study 

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

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

have paid for the promotions conducted actually benefit from them? 

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

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

20 
 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

$1 investment that returns $5 in incremental revenue generates a BCR of 5 to 1. However, a 5-to1 BCR also results from a $5 million return from a $1 million investment. Despite resulting in 

the same BCR, the magnitude of the impact from the $1 million investment is obviously much 

greater than that of the $1 investment. In addition, due to diminishing marginal returns, the ratio 

between the incremental revenue generated and the level of funding (the BCR) declines as 

funding increases. Consequently, metrics other than the BCR, such as the level of impact on 

consumption, prices, and exports, are more revealing and useful indicators of the magnitude of 

checkoff program impact and effectiveness than the BCR. 

The objectives of this report are fourfold, namely to: 

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

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

exports; 

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

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

21 
 

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

assessments; and 

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

This project covers the period of 1995 to 2019 and captures the joint efforts of DMI, MilkPEP, 

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

over this period are as follows: (1) DMI – 25.79 percent; (2) MilkPEP – 23.64 percent; and (3) 

QPs – 50.56 percent. 

Summary of the Findings 

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

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

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

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

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

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

overhead, technical support, and industry relations. 

Over the period from 1995 to 2019, the BCRs expressed in terms of producer profit at the farm 

level were calculated to be $3.26 for every dollar invested in demand-enhancing activities for 

22 
 

fluid milk; $3.62 for every dollar invested in demand-enhancing activities for cheese; and $24.40 

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

promotion activities, the BCR was calculated to be $6.79 for every dollar invested. Over the 

same period, the BCR of export promotion was $6.94 per dollar invested. On a fat and skim 

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

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

The aggregate all-dairy BCR was 4.76, meaning that, on average, producer profit increased by 

$4.76 for each dollar invested in demand-enhancing activities. 

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

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

million per year between 2012 and 2019, averaging $3.93 million. The import assessment 

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

MilkPEP, and the QPs. 

Imported cheese levels were higher by 1.4 million pounds due to promotion funds collected from 

importers. Unit values of cheese imports amounted to roughly $3.19 per pound on average over 

the period between 2012 and 2019. Hence, incremental revenue to importers solely from cheese 

attributable to the import assessment (on cheese) totaled roughly $4.5 million. 

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

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

estimated to be 5.59, quite similar to the 4.76 return on investment for all dairy product 

23 
 

 

 

 

promotion investments. The BCR for MilkPEP was estimated to be 3.28, very similar to the 3.26 

figure previously reported for all fluid milk promotional spending. 

The BCR of fluid milk at the processor level was estimated to be 5.61 over the period 1995 to 

2019. Importantly, this measure captures the gross return on investment for fluid milk market 

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

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

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

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

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

participants beyond the farm gate. As such, we exercise caution because of these caveats in 

providing this estimate of the BCR attributed to the promotion of fluid milk at the processor 

level. 

DMI, MilkPEP, and QP Promotion Program Expenditures 

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

demand-enhancing expenditures from all three entities were aggregated. 

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

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

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

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

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

24 
 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

primarily related to demand-enhancing efforts. 

Over the years, the DMI Board of Directors changed their marketing strategies to focus more on 

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

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

with and through specific partners to achieve sustainable, category-level sales impacts; (2) 

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

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

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

industry to increase sales of fluid milk and dairy products. 

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

1995 to 2019 are depicted in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1. On average, roughly $370 million in total 

were spent annually by the respective entities over this period and approximately between $400 

million and $415 million since 2013. In 2019, promotion program expenditures amounted to 

slightly more than $403 million. 

25 
 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

26 
--------

7 

_ .......... , ,------- .......... - .,...,.. .......... .,.. .... , I 

-----...... ---- ,, 

C -- - ~ ---:/-;------:-:--::::---::: c:;==....c~:::::...: ---_ _:---:_ ___ --- -_

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

(MilkPEP), and Qualified Program (QP) Promotion Program Expenditures, 1995 to 20191 

Year DMI MilkPEP QPs Total 

1995 $88,105 

1996 $99,674 

1997 $93,859 

1998 $97,570 

1999 $96,010 

2000 $94,260 

2001 $102,835 

2002 $98,752 

2003 $94,256 

2004 $90,171 

2005 $83,484 

2006 $73,067 

2007 $74,623 

2008 $99,051 

2009 $94,071 

2010 $87,512 

2011 $88,456 

2012 $82,360 

2013 $93,184 

2014 $102,728 

2015 $107,133 

2016 $102,712 

2017 $110,005 

2018 $115,442 

2019 $109,287 

$43,654 $160,832 $292,592 

$38,690 $159,600 $297,964 

$101,850 $160,379 $356,088 

$100,901 $158,348 $356,819 

$97,023 $161,161 $354,194 

$95,158 $169,654 $359,072 

$95,112 $169,967 $367,914 

$93,511 $174,857 $367,120 

$95,688 $165,973 $355,917 

$97,167 $172,667 $360,005 

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

$92,029 $182,443 $347,539 

$101,125 $190,289 $366,037 

$97,003 $181,092 $377,146 

$95,109 $187,992 $377,172 

$98,316 $166,459 $352,287 

$91,289 $214,763 $394,508 

$91,893 $216,484 $390,736 

$89,633 $216,844 $399,662 

$83,426 $211,919 $398,074 

$83,098 $219,660 $409,891 

$84,858 $227,834 $415,404 

$82,910 $218,548 $411,462 

$80,817 $207,903 $404,163 

$76,429 $216,867 $402,583 1

Thousands of dollars. 

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

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

(MilkPEP), and Qualified Program (QP) Promotion Expenditures, 1995 to 2019 

$250,000 

$200,000 

$150,000 

$50,000 

$100,000 

$0 

DMI MilkPEP QPs 

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

27 
 

 

 

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

dairy products (fluid and manufacturing) combined on a quarterly basis from 1995 to 2019 are 

exhibited in Figure 3-2. These demand-enhancing expenditures varied from $53.5 million to 

$98.7 million per quarter, averaging $82.4 million. 

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

MilkPEP, and QPs on a quarterly basis from 1995 to 2019 are exhibited in Figure 3-3. Over that 

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

ranged from roughly $22.8 million to $63.3 million per quarter. On average over the same 

period, nominal seasonally adjusted demand-enhancing expenditures for fluid milk were $33.8 

million per quarter. 

As shown in Figure 3-4, over the period 1995 to 2019, nominal seasonally adjusted demandenhancing expenditures for cheese averaged $15.8 million per quarter, ranging from $8.1 million 

to $27.7 million. Nominal seasonally adjusted demand-enhancing expenditures for cheese ranged 

from $12.8 million to $27.7 million between 1995 and 2004, averaging $21.8 million per quarter. 

From 2005 to the third quarter of 2008, promotion expenditures associated with cheese were 

much smaller compared to the period of 1995 to 2004. On average, expenditures on cheese 

marketing and promotion were $12 million during this period. From the fourth quarter of 2008 

through the end of 2019, nominal quarterly expenditures on cheese marketing and promotion 

activities ranged from $8.1 million to $17.1 million, averaging $11.7 million per quarter. 

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

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

28 
 

slightly more than $1.3 million per quarter over the period 1995 to 2019. Marketing and 

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

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

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

increasing number of campaigns affecting multiple products, assessing demand enhancements 

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

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

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

quarterly basis ranged from just under $800 to approximately $6.7 million (Figure 3-6a). These 

expenditures trended upward from 1995 to 2019, averaging about $2.8 million per quarter over 

this period. As exhibited in Figure 3.6b, nominal seasonally adjusted funds awarded through 

USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) directed to exports of dairy products varied from 

just under $310,000 to about $2.0 million, averaging nearly $1.1 million per quarter over the 

period of 1997 to 2019. The funds are awarded through USDA FAS’s Foreign Market 

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

and FMD/MAP expenditures (nominal, seasonally adjusted) ranged from $881 to $8.7 million 

per quarter, averaging $3.8 million on a quarterly basis over the same period from 1995 to 2019 

(Figure 3-6c). 

29 
 

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

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

Qualified Programs (QPs), 1995 to 2019* 

$120,000,000 

$60,000,000 

$80,000,000 

$100,000,000 

$40,000,000 

$20,000,000 

$0 

*

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

market and economic research. 

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

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

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

Programs (QPs), 1995 to 2019 

$70,000,000 

$30,000,000 

$40,000,000 

$50,000,000 

$60,000,000 

$20,000,000 

$10,000,000 

$0 

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

30 
 

 

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

Management Inc. (DMI) and Qualified Programs (QPs), 1995 to 2019 

$30,000,000 

$10,000,000 

$15,000,000 

$20,000,000 

$25,000,000 

$5,000,000 

$0 

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

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

by Dairy Management Inc. (DMI) and Qualified Programs (QPs), 1995 to 2019 

$8,000,000 

$7,000,000 

$6,000,000 

$5,000,000 

$4,000,000 

$3,000,000 

$2,000,000 

$1,000,000 

$0 

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

31 
 

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

Dairy Management Inc. (DMI), 1995 to 2019 

$8,000,000 

$7,000,000 

$6,000,000 

$5,000,000 

$4,000,000 

$3,000,000 

$2,000,000 

$1,000,000 

$0 

Source: Data from DMI. Calculations by the authors. 

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

through the Foreign Market Development/Market Access Programs, 1997 to 2019* 

2500000 

500000 

1000000 

1500000 

2000000 

0 

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

interpolations were made for these years. 

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

32 
 

 

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

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

Access Programs, 1995 to 2019 

$10,000,000 

$9,000,000 

$8,000,000 

$7,000,000 

$6,000,000 

$5,000,000 

$4,000,000 

$3,000,000 

$2,000,000 

$1,000,000 

$0 

Source: Calculations by authors. 

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

Research Program, effective August 1, 2011, is based on milk content as follows: 

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

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

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

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

Volume 76, No. 53, page 14479). 

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

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

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

Marketing Board, Inc. Import assessment funds totaled between $3.44 million and $4.76 million 

33 
$500,000 

$400,000 

$300,000 

$200,000 

$100,000 

$0 

per year from 2012 to 2019, averaging $3.93 million. The cumulative import assessment funds 

totaled $32.53 million from September 2011 to December 2019. On a monthly basis, funds from 

the dairy import assessment ranged from $210,086 to $493,975, averaging $325,271 over the 

period of September 2011 to December 2019 (Figure 3-7). The import assessment averaged just 

under 1.0 percent of the total demand-enhancing expenditures made by DMI, MilkPEP, and the 

QPs between 2012 and 2019. 

Trends in Dairy Use 

Per capita fluid milk consumption trended downward between 1995 and 2019 (Figure 3-8). In 

2019, per capita consumption of fluid milk ranged from 34.01 pounds per person to 36.44 

pounds per person, down from 50.44 pounds per person to 53.20 pounds per person in 1995. 

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

$600,000 

Sep-11 

Dec-11 

Mar-12 

Jun-12 

Sep-12 

Dec-12 

Mar-13 

Jun-13 

Sep-13 

Dec-13 

Mar-14 

Jun-14 

Sep-14 

Dec-14 

Mar-15 

Jun-15 

Sep-15 

Dec-15 

Mar-16 

Jun-16 

Sep-16 

Dec-16 

Mar-17 

Jun-17 

Sep-17 

Dec-17 

Mar-18 

Jun-18 

Sep-18 

Dec-18 

Mar-19 

Jun-19 

Sep-19 

Dec-19 

Mar-20 

Jun-20 

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture 

34 
 

 

Figure 3-8. Quarterly Per Capita U.S. Consumption of Fluid Milk, 1995 to 2019 

55.00 

35.00 

40.00 

45.00 

50.00 

Pounds 

30.00 

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Seasonality also is evident in per capita U.S. consumption of fluid milk. The downward trend 

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

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

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

often than those born in the 1950s. U.S. per capita milk consumption has declined by nearly 33 

percent since 1995 due to changing consumption habits as well as increased competition from 

other beverages. 

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

Between 1995 and 2019, the commercial per capita disappearance of cheese ranged from 6.4 

pounds per quarter to 10.1 pounds per quarter, averaging about 8.1 pounds. Over the same 

period, per capita butter consumption grew modestly and exhibited seasonal patterns as well 

(Figure 3-10). The commercial disappearance of butter on a per capita basis ranged from 0.9 

35 
pounds per quarter to 1.9 pounds per quarter, averaging slightly more than 1.2 pounds. 

On average over the period 1995 to 2019, the per capita commercial disappearance of all dairy 

products on a fat basis amounted to 152 pounds per quarter, ranging from 137 pounds to 172 

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

of all dairy products over that same period amounted to 137 pounds per quarter, ranging from 

130 pounds to 143 pounds per quarter (Figure 3-12). 

Between 1995 and 2019, quarterly dairy exports on a fat basis averaged nearly 1,381 pounds and 

close to 5,700 pounds on a skim-solids basis (Figure 3-13). 

The United States imported between $2.8 billion and $3.5 billion in dairy products from 2012 to 

2019 (Table 3-2). Cheese products accounted for 35.73 percent to 43.43 percent (by value) of all 

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

2018 at 43.43 percent and lowest in 2012 at 35.73 percent. 

The analysis in the next section addresses the response of consumers to dairy promotion 

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

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

such as price and income. 

Findings on Impacts of Promotion Expenditures on Dairy Demand 

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

36 
J;) 

<,,.oe 

J>,,.oe 

1'i-oe 

1/oe 

J!,. 

"'/oe 

1/oe 

9-o 

E'/oe 

2' 

/ /oe 

<oo 

cPooe 

6boe 

o,,.oe 

2' 

..9. Voe 

A 

"ooe 

Voe 

Coo 

<ooe 

2' 

6:: 

Oooe 

Ooe /. 

66/ 

~6/ 

_c:: 

..9. 

<66)­

66/ 

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

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

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

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

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

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

returns to producers. 

Figure 3-9. Quarterly Per Capita U.S. Consumption of Cheese, 1995 to 2019 

11.00 

10.50 

6.50 

7.00 

7.50 

8.00 

8.50 

9.00 

9.50 

10.00 

P o und s 

6.00 

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

37 
Figure 3-10. Quarterly Per Capita U.S. Consumption of Butter, 1995 to 2019 

2.00 

1.00 

1.20 

1.40 

1.60 

1.80 

Pounds 

0.80 

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Figure 3-11. Quarterly Per Capita U.S. Consumption of All Dairy Products on a MilkEquivalent Fat Basis, 1995 to 2019 

175.00 

135.00 

140.00 

145.00 

150.00 

155.00 

160.00 

165.00 

170.00 

Pounds 

130.00 

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

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

38 
Basis, 1995 to 2019 

145.00 

131.00 

133.00 

135.00 

137.00 

139.00 

141.00 

143.00 

Pounds 

129.00 

127.00 

125.00 

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

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

Skim-Solids Basis, 1995 to 2019 

14,000 

0 

2,000 

4,000 

6,000 

8,000 

10,000 

12,000 

Million Pounds 

Milk-Equivalent Fat Basis Skim Solids Basis 

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

Table 3-2. U.S. Dairy Product Imports and Import Assessment Funds, 2012 to 20191 

39 
 

 

 

 

 

-

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 

Value of All Dairy 

Imports ($1,000) $3,059,069 $3,051,985 $3,452,772 $3,453,239 $3,449,000 $2,813,000 $2,945,000 $3,112,000 

Value of Cheese 

Imports ($1,000) $1,093,027 $1,145,000 $1,274,747 $1,290,771 $1,264,000 $1,178,000 $1,279,000 $1,310,000 

Quantity of Cheese 

Imports, (metric tons) 153,964 147,196 164,778 197,767 205,286 182,401 176,211 177,973 

Unit Value of Cheese 

Imports ($/MT) $7,099 $7,779 $7,736 $6,527 $6,157 $6,458 $7,258 $7,361 

Import Assessment 

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

Import Assessment per 

$1,000 of dairy 

imports 

$1.15 $1.13 $1.03 $1.21 $1.38 $1.50 $1.29 $1.29 

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

2011 to present. The table shows funds collected from January 2012 to December 2019. 

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

Trade data from USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service. 

Figure 3-14. U.S. Dairy Imports and Cheese Share of Dairy Import Value, 2012 to 2019 

0.00 

5.00 

10.00 

15.00 

20.00 

25.00 

30.00 

35.00 

40.00 

45.00 

50.00 

$0 

$500,000 

$1,000,000 

$1,500,000 

$2,000,000 

$2,500,000 

$3,000,000 

$3,500,000 

$4,000,000 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 

Cheese Share of Dairy Import Value Total Dairy Imports ($1,000 Dollars) 

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

40 
 

 

 

Estimation of Dairy Consumption and Export Changes Due to Promotion Program 

Expenditures 

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

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

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

National Programs individually. 

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

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

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

change in promotion expenditures, holding all other variables constant. 

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

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

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

statistical analysis are as follows: 

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

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

plus imports. 

• The promotion elasticities for butter, cheese, and fluid milk for 2019 were on average 0.050, 

0.013, and 0.069, respectively. The promotion elasticities for all dairy products on a skimsolids basis and on a fat basis for 2019 were on average 0.057 and 0.051 respectively. 

41 
 

 

 

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

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

cheese for up to 2 quarters. The effect on fluid milk persisted for up to 8 quarters and up to 12 

quarters for butter. For the aggregate of all dairy products, the effect persisted for 6 quarters on 

both a fat and skim-solids basis. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

expenditure elasticity was estimated to be statistically significant at 0.056 over the sample period 

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

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

significant at 0.098 (Table 3-3). 

Simulation Analysis of the Market Effects of Dairy Promotion 

The analysis covers the period of 1995 to 2019. The results are decomposed for comparison 

2 Key drivers of dairy demand were found to include the ratio of the Oceania export butter price to the U.S. butter 

price on a fat basis; the ratio of the Oceania export price for skim milk powder (SMP) to the U.S. nonfat dry milk 

(NDM) price on a skim-solids basis; a measure of real-world income; seasonality; and inertia or stickiness of dairy 

exports in world markets. 

42 
 

purposes into four similar time periods: (1) 1995 to 2000, (2) 2001 to 2006, (3) 2007 to 2012, 

and (4) 2013 to 2019. The analysis was accomplished by first aligning the annual model of the 

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

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

observed data over the 1995 to 2019 period. Then the impact of promotion was obtained by 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

scenarios are presented in Table 3-4. These tables provide a comparison of the “with promotion” 

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

without promotion) to show the effects across time from dairy promotion spending. There are 

many factors at play in the year-by-year results, including the level of promotion expenditures 

each year and the supply dynamics built into the AMAP structural dairy model. To provide some 

insight into these model dynamics, four sub-periods of results are shown as well as the entire 

period for selected endogenous variables. The analysis starts in 1995 and, thus, does not include 

the effects of any dairy promotion that may have occurred prior to that year. 

43 
Table 3-3. Estimated Dairy Demand Sensitivity to Promotion, Prices, and Income, 1995 to 2019 

Promotion Elasticities Own-Price Income 

1995 to 2019 2019 only Elasticity Elasticity 

Butter1 0.041 0.050 -0.057 0.357 

Cheese1 0.018 0.013 -0.136 0.520 

Fluid milk1 0.092 0.069 -0.071 -0.471 

All dairy1 

Skim-solids basis 0.064 0.057 -0.066 0.097 

Fat basis 0.058 0.051 -0.072 0.407 

Exports1 

Skim-solids basis 0.056 0.056 -0.206 0.685 

Fat basis 0.098 0.098 -0.300 0.578 

1

Over the time period 1995.1 to 2019.4. 

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

between 1995 and 2019 was mitigated to some extent by the promotional efforts of the National 

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

171.92 pounds per capita annually instead of 192.41 pounds per capita annually over the 1995 to 

2019 period as actually occurred with promotion. Hence, promotion expenditures associated with 

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

consumption. 

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

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

change in either scenario, this analytical process effectively isolates the effects of the National 

Programs on U.S. dairy markets and exports. That is, the simulated differences between the 

values of the endogenous variables from the “with promotion” scenario and those from the “no 

promotion” scenario, provide direct measures of the historical effects of the dairy promotion 

44 
expenditures (and only those expenditures) on U.S. dairy markets and exports. 

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

butter was higher by 11.9 percent, 4.0 percent, and 4.7 percent, respectively, over the period of 

1995 to 2019 due to promotion efforts, all other exogenous factors held constant. The average 

annual per capita consumption of nonfat dry milk (NFDM) would have been 3.13 pounds per 

capita annually without promotion versus 3.15 pounds per capita as actually occurred with 

promotion over the 1995 to 2019 period, an increase of 0.7 percent. 

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

31 pounds without promotion versus the 32.24 pounds as actually occurred with promotion over 

1995 to 2019. For butter, annual per capita consumption would have averaged 4.73 pounds 

without promotion versus the 4.95 pounds that actually occurred with promotion over the same 

period. 

45 
Table 3-4. Effects of Dairy Promotion on U.S. Dairy Markets Based on Simulation of Supply 

Response – Per Capita Consumption 

Fluid Milk 

Per Capita 

Consumption 

(pounds) 

Cheese 

Per Capita 

Consumption 

(pounds) 

Butter 

Per Capita 

Consumption 

(pounds) 

Nonfat Dry Milk 

Per Capita 

Consumption 

(pounds) 

Period 

With Promotion (lbs) 170.25 36.33 5.75 2.98 

20 - 13 2019 

No Promotion (lbs) 

Change (lbs) 

153.86 

16.39 

34.89 

1.44 

5.41 

0.35 

2.92 

0.06 

Percent Change 10.7% 4.1% 6.4% 2.0% 

With Promotion (lbs) 193.95 32.95 5.08 3.27 

2007 – 2012

No Promotion (lbs) 

Change (lbs) 

174.13 

19.82 

31.59 

1.37 

4.83 

0.25 

3.22 

0.05 

Percent Change 11.4% 4.3% 5.2% 1.5% 

With Promotion (lbs) 199.97 30.99 4.49 3.23 

2001 – 2006

No Promotion (lbs) 

Change (lbs) 

177.63 

22.34 

29.78 

1.21 

4.35 

0.14 

3.22 

0.00 

Percent Change 12.6% 4.1% 3.3% 0.1% 

With Promotion (lbs) 209.18 28.02 4.35 3.15 

19 - 95 2000 

No Promotion (lbs) 

Change (lbs) 

185.08 

24.10 

27.10 

0.92 

4.21 

0.14 

3.18 

-0.03 

Percent Change 13.0% 3.4% 3.2% -0.9% 

With Promotion (lbs) 192.41 32.24 4.95 3.15 

19 - 95 2019 

No Promotion (lbs) 

Change (lbs) 

171.92 

20.49 

31.00 

1.24 

4.73 

0.22 

3.13 

0.02 

Percent Change 11.9% 4.0% 4.7% 0.7% 

Source: Calculation by the authors. 

Average annual per capita consumption of fluid milk, cheese, and butter were higher by 10.7 

percent, 4.1 percent, and 6.4 percent, respectively, due to promotion during the 2013 to 2019 

period (Table 3-4). Annual exports of butter averaged 19.9 percent less than would have 

occurred without promotion while annual exports of nonfat dry milk and cheese averaged 2.5 

percent and 4.5 percent higher, respectively, due to promotion. 

The average annual per capita consumption of cheese was also higher by 0.02 pounds (0.06 

percent) as a result of the promotion funded by the importer assessment, but no appreciable 

changes were evident in the annual per capita consumption of butter and fluid milk. What then is 

46 
 

 

 

the impact of the assessment on imports of dairy products? Given that cheese occupies a notable 

share of imported dairy products, we focus attention on the incremental amount of imports of 

cheese attributed to the importer assessment. Annually between 2012 to 2019, total cheese 

consumption in the United States amounted to 103.1 billion pounds. Because of the assessment 

from importers, total domestic cheese consumption was higher by 57 million pounds. To arrive 

at this figure, we multiply 103.1 billion pounds by the percentage change in cheese consumption 

as a result of the importer assessment (0.06 percent as noted previously). Further, because cheese 

imports are roughly 2.5 percent of domestic consumption (United States Department of 

Agriculture), then due to promotion funds collected from importers, imported cheese levels were 

higher by 1.4 million pounds. Further, unit values of cheese imports amounted to roughly $3.19 

per pound on average annually between 2012 to 2019. Hence, incremental revenue to importers 

solely from cheese attributed to the import assessment totaled about $4.5 million. 

Dairy Promotion Program Benefit-Cost Analysis 

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

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

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

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

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

expenditures made to generate those additional profits. The fluid milk processor BCR is 

calculated similarly to the producer BCR in which the cost of milk is used as a proxy for the cost 

of production since data pertaining to the cost of production for fluid milk processors are not 

available. 

47 
 

 

 

 

Based on a comparative analysis, results for the “promotion” and “no-promotion” scenarios as 

summarized in the previous section (see Table 3-4), the answer to the key question posed earlier 

regarding the National Programs, as it relates to the analyzed products, is that these programs 

have effectively increased the demand of promoted dairy products. 

Table 3-5. Calculated Benefit-Cost Ratio 

(BCRs), in Net Profit at the Producer Level 

Attributable to the National Programs, 1995 to 

2019 

Producers 

Product BCR 

All Dairy 4.76 

Fluid milk 3.26 

Cheese 3.62 

Butter 24.40 

Exports 6.94 

Other Non-Specific Dairy Promotion 6.79 

As exhibited in Table 3-5, over the period 1995 

to 2019, the gains in profit at the producer level 

were far larger than the expenditures on 

demand-enhancement programs. The BCRs for 

producers for fluid milk were calculated to be 

$3.26 for every dollar invested in dairy demand 

promotion; for cheese, $3.62 for every dollar 

invested; and for butter, $24.40 for every dollar 

invested. For other non-specific dairy 

promotion activities, the BCR was calculated to 

be $6.79 for every dollar invested. Dairy export 

promotion expenditures increased foreign 

demand for U.S. dairy products by $6.94 for 

every dollar invested. For the aggregate of all dairy products, the net profit BCR is $4.76 for 

every dollar invested. 

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

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

To address the effectiveness of the investments made by DMI and MilkPEP separately, we 

48 
 

 

 

simulated “with promotion” and “without” promotion” scenarios for each of the two entities 

following the same methodology as for the aggregate analysis. DMI promotion expenditures 

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

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

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

was calculated to be 5.59, a bit higher than the 4.76 return on investment shown in Table 3-5 for 

all dairy product promotion investments. The BCR for MilkPEP was calculated at 3.28, nearly 

identical to the 3.26 return calculated for all fluid milk promotional spending in Table 3-5. 

The BCR for fluid milk at the processor level was estimated to be 5.61 over the period between 

1995 and 2019. Importantly, this measure captures the gross return on investment for fluid milk 

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

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

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

others in the marketing channel besides fluid milk processors capture a portion of this 

incremental total value too. But we have no knowledge of the portion captured by processors 

versus other milk market participants beyond the farm gate. As such, we exercise caution 

because of these caveats in providing this estimate of the BCR attributed to the promotion of 

fluid milk at the processor level over the 1995 to 2019 period. 

Concluding Remarks3 

3 A reference list is available upon request. 

49 
 

 

 

 

 

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

covering the period 1995 to 2019. The key findings regarding markets for milk and 

manufactured dairy products over that period include the following: 

• The National Programs have effectively increased the demand for promoted dairy products, 

especially cheese and butter, and moderated the decline in per capita fluid milk consumption. 

• The gains in profit at the producer and fluid milk processer level from promotion were far 

larger than the costs of the National Programs. The overall BCR (using profit over costs) of 

the dairy producer promotion program was calculated to be 4.76. That is, for every $1 spent 

on demand-enhancing activities, dairy producers received an additional $4.76. 

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

by 1.4 million pounds. Annual unit values of cheese imports amounted to about $3.19 per 

pound on average over the period from 2012 to 2019. Hence, the incremental revenue to 

importers solely from cheese attributable to the expenditure of the import assessments for 

cheese promotion totaled roughly $4.5 million. 

• The BCR for fluid milk promotion was calculated to be $3.26 for every dollar invested in 

demand-enhancing activities. For cheese promotion, the BCR was calculated to be $3.62 per 

dollar invested in cheese promotion and $24.40 for every dollar invested in butter promotion. 

The BCR for dairy export promotion was calculated to be $6.94 per dollar invested. 

Regarding methodology, the analysis was accomplished by first statistically estimating the 

relationships between dairy product demands and the respective demand drivers including prices 

and promotion expenditures. The structural econometric models used for this analysis are 

50 
statistically valid and largely consistent with prior studies evaluating generic commodity 

promotion. The annual model of the U.S. dairy industry maintained at the University of 

Missouri, the Agricultural Markets and Policy Group Dairy Model (AMAP Dairy Model), was 

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

with the observed data over the 1995 to 2019 period. The model was then simulated over history 

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

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

generated with the model over history in which promotion expenditures in the dairy product 

demand equations were set to zero. The second scenario results represent the levels of prices and 

quantities that would have existed if the National Programs had not been created and, thus, dairy 

promotion had not been done. 

51 
 

 

CHAPTER 4 

Qualified State, Regional, or Importer 

Dairy Product Promotion, Research, or Nutrition Education Programs 

The Secretary annually certifies Qualified Programs as part of the Dairy Act and Order. To 

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

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

generally; 

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

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

3. Be primarily financed by producers, either individually or through cooperative 

associations or dairy importers; 

4. Not use a private brand or trade name in its advertising and promotion of dairy products 

(unless approved by the Dairy Board and USDA); 

5. Certify that requests from producers or importers for refunds under the program will be 

honored by forwarding to either the Dairy Board or a Qualified Program designated by 

the producer or importer that portion of such refunds equal to the amount that would 

otherwise be applicable to that program; and 

6. Not use program funds for the purpose of influencing governmental policy or action. 

The aggregate revenue from the assessments directed to the Qualified Programs in 2019 was 

$298 million (approximately 10 cents of the 15-cent producer assessment and 2.5 cents of the 

52 
 

7.5-cent import assessment). This chapter provides the aggregate income and expenditure data of 

the Qualified Programs as well as a list of certified programs in 2019. 

53 
 

 

 

 

 

2019 Qualified State, Regional or Importer Dairy Product Promotion, 

Research or Nutrition Education Programs Aggregate Income and 

Expenditure Data Reported to USDA 

(Thousands) 

Aggregate Income FY 2019 

Carryover from Previous Year 1 $82,094 

Producer Remittances 219,499 

Transfers from Other Qualified Programs 67,095 

Transfers to Other Qualified Programs (78,813) 

Other Income 7,899 

Total Adjusted Annual Income $297,775 

Aggregate Expenditures FY 2019 

General and Administrative $12,069 

Milk Advertising and Promotion 13,970 

Cheese Advertising and Promotion 30,420 

Butter Advertising and Promotion 7,225 

Frozen Dairy Products Advertising and Promotion 4,349 

Other Advertising and Promotion 2 9,314 

Unified Marketing Plan 3 79,508 

Dairy Foods and Nutrition Research 8,012 

Public and Industry Communications 24,563 

Nutrition Education 16,225 

Market and Economic Research 4,878 

Other 6,289 

Total Annual Expenditures $216,822 

Total Available for Future Year Programs $80,952 

1 Differences can occur because of audit adjustments and varying accounting periods. 

2 Includes “Real Seal,” holiday, multi-product, calcium, foodservice, product donations at State fairs, and other 

promotional activities. 

3 This line reflects reported local spending by United Dairy Industry Association units participating in Dairy 

Management Inc.’s Unified Marketing Plan to fund national implementation programs. 

Source: Data reported by Qualified Dairy Product Promotion, Research, and Nutrition Education Programs. 

54 
 

 

2019 Qualified State, Regional or Importer Dairy Product Promotion, 

Research or Nutrition Education Programs 

Alabama: 

• American Dairy Association of 

Alabama 

Arizona: 

• Dairy Council of Arizona 

California: 

• California Milk Advisory Board 

• Dairy Council of California 

Connecticut: 

• Connecticut Milk Promotion Board 

Florida: 

• Florida Dairy Farmers, Inc. 

Georgia: 

• Georgia Agricultural Commodity 

Commission for Milk 

• Southeast United Dairy Industry 

Association (d/b/a Dairy Alliance) 

• American Dairy Association of 

Georgia 

Idaho: 

• Idaho Dairy Products Commission 

• Dairy West 

Illinois: 

• Illinois Milk Promotion Board 

Indiana: 

• American Dairy Association of 

Indiana 

• Indiana Dairy Industry Development 

Board 

Kansas: 

• Kansas Dairy Commission 

55 
 

Kentucky: 

• American Dairy Association of 

Kentucky 

Louisiana: 

• Louisiana Dairy Industry Promotion 

Board 

Maine: 

• Maine Dairy and Nutrition Council 

• Maine Dairy Promotion Board 

Massachusetts: 

• Massachusetts Dairy Promotion 

Board 

• New England Dairy and Food 

Council 

• New England Dairy Promotion 

Board 

• American Dairy Association of 

Michigan 

• Dairy Council of Michigan 

• Michigan Dairy Market Program 

Minnesota: 

• Midwest Dairy Association 

• Midwest Dairy Council 

• Minnesota Dairy Research and 

Promotion Council 

Mississippi 

• American Dairy Association of 

Mississippi 

Missouri: 

• Dairy Promotion Inc. 

• Promotion Services, Inc. 

• St. Louis District Dairy Council 

Nebraska: 

Michigan: 

56 
• Nebraska Dairy Industry 

Development Board 

Nevada: 

• Dairy Council of Nevada 

New Hampshire: 

• Granite State Dairy Promotion 

New Jersey: 

• New Jersey Dairy Industry Advisory 

Council 

New York: 

• American Dairy Association and 

Dairy Council (d/b/a American Dairy 

Association Northeast) 

• Milk for Health on the Niagara 

Frontier 

• New York State Department of 

Agriculture, Division of Milk 

Control and Dairy Services 

• Rochester Health Foundation, Inc. 

North Carolina: 

• American Dairy Association of 

North Carolina 

North Dakota: 

• North Dakota Dairy Promotion 

Commission 

Ohio: 

• American Dairy Association Mideast 

Oregon: 

• Oregon Dairy Products Commission 

Pennsylvania: 

• Allied Milk Producers’ Cooperative 

• Mid-Atlantic Dairy Association 

(d/b/a American Dairy Association 

Northeast) 

• Pennsylvania Dairy Promotion 

Program 

57 
 

 

 

 

 

Puerto Rico, Commonwealth of: 

• Milk Industry Development Fund of 

Puerto Rico (Fondo Fomento 

Industria Lechera) 

South Carolina: 

• American Dairy Association of 

South Carolina 

South Dakota: 

• American Dairy Association of 

South Dakota 

Tennessee: 

• American Dairy Association of 

Tennessee 

• Tennessee Dairy Promotion 

Committee 

Texas: 

• Dairy Max, Inc. 

• Western Dairy Association 

• Southwest Dairy Museum 

Utah: 

• Utah Dairy Commission 

Vermont: 

• Vermont Dairy Promotion Council 

Virginia: 

• American Dairy Association of 

Virginia 

Washington: 

• Washington State Dairy Council 

• Washington Dairy Products 

Wisconsin: 

• Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board 

(d/b/a Dairy Farmers of Wisconsin) 

58 
 

Qualified Importer Programs: 

• Cheese Importers Association of America 

• Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board (d/b/a Dairy Farmers of Wisconsin) 

• Global Dairy Platform 

59 
 

 

2019 Dairy Management Inc. and U.S. Dairy Export Council Contracts 

Approved by USDA 

Contractor Name [Contract Activities] 

B = Business Development C = Communications Co = Consultants 

F = Fluid Milk Revitalization 60 = Fuel Up to Play 60 E = Exports 

N = Nutrition and Wellness I = Ingredients K = Knowledge and Insights 

P = Partnerships S = Sustainability U = Unified Marketing Plan 

Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics [N] 

Advantage Point Internationale, LLC [C] 

Agribusiness-Connect Asia [E] 

American Academy of Pediatrics [N] 

American Butter Institute [U] 

American College of Sports Medicine [N] 

American Dairy Association Indiana, Inc. [U] 

American-Mexican Marketing [E] 

American Society for Nutrition [N] 

Arab Marketing Finance, Inc. [E] 

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

Baxter Communications, Inc. [C] 

Bodhi Road, Inc. (Fresh Company) [B] 

C+R Research Services [F, K] 

Cady, Roger [Co] 

Campus Kitchen [B] 

Center for Food Integrity [C] 

CFE Solutions, Inc. [Co] 

CliftonLarsonAllen, LLP [B] 

College & Professional Sports Dieticians [N] 

Commonwealth Agriculture Strategies [K] 

ConferenceDirect, LLC [B] 

Costco Wholesale Corporation [B, K] 

Cowboy Media Productions, LLC [C, E] 

Crimson Hexagon [C] 

Crowd Companies, LLC (Catalyst) [C] 

Culinary Institute of America [I] 

Current Marketing – Brandwitch Consumer 

Research [Co] 

CustomED [C] 

Dairy Council of Utah [U] 

Dairy Farmers of America [P] 

60 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dairy Girl Network [B] 

Dairy Insights, LLC [Co, E] 

Dairy Max, Inc. [U] 

Darigold, Inc. [P] 

Digital SpeakEasy, LLC [C, S] 

Discovery Education, Inc. [C] 

Domino’s Pizza Enterprises – Japan [E] 

Domino’s Pizza Enterprises – Oceania [E] 

Domino’s Pizza, LLC [P] 

DuPuis Group [C, F] 

Dutcher & Associates, LLC [C] 

EAS Consulting Group [I] 

Eat Well Global, Inc. [N] 

Edelman Public Relations Worldwide [C, 60] 

Ernst & Young Global Limited [B] 

Exponent, Inc. [K] 

Family Room Strategic Consulting Group [K] 

Feeding America [P] 

Fleishman-Hillard, Inc. [C] 

Florida Dairy Farmers, Inc. [U] 

Food Research and Action Center [N] 

FoodMinds, A Division of Padilla Speer 

Beardsley, Inc. [E, I] 

Foodsense, LLC [C, N] 

Global Dairy Platform, Inc. [C] 

GlobalData Plc (Canadean Consumer) [E, K] 

Hartman Group [K] 

Hebrew Rehabilitation Center [K] 

Hillstrom Communications, Inc. [C] 

Hruska, Cindy [B, E] 

Hutchinson Cancer Research Center [K] 

IDEA Health & Fitness [C] 

Information Resources, Inc. [K] 

Inmar Analytics, Inc. [K] 

Innerspace Studio [C] 

Innova Market Insights [K] 

International Dairy Foods Association [E, K] 

Interpublic Marketing Services, Ltd., Beijing 

Branch (Weber Shandwick Shanghai) [E] 

IntNet (South Korea) [E] 

Ipsos Insights, LLC [I, K] 

JF Pontzer, LLC [C] 

Joslin Diabetes Center, Inc. [N] 

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

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

Keenan, Judy [Co] 

61 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KJ Marketing Consulting [60] 

Koski, Shannon [C, E] 

Land O'Lakes, Inc. [P] 

Lee, Jay [Co] 

Lowe & Partners Worldwide, Inc., d/b/a 

Campbell Ewald New York [Co] 

Maine Dairy Promotion Board [U] 

Market Makers, Inc. [E] 

McDonald’s USA, LLC [P] 

McLeod, Watkinson & Miller [B] 

McClelland, Alyssa [Co] 

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

National Academy of Sciences [I] 

National Dairy Shrine [B] 

National Football League Players, Inc. [60] 

National Football League Properties [60] 

National Milk Producers Federation [E, K] 

National Osteoporosis Foundation [N] 

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

Novak Birch [C, E] 

NPD Group, Inc. [K] 

NTT Data, Inc. [B, C] 

Nutrition Insights, LLC [N] 

Nutritional Strategies, Inc. [N] 

Nygaard Consulting, LLC [E, K] 

O’Donohue, Katherine [Co] 

Orrani Consulting, Ltd. [E, K] 

P R Consultants, Ltd [E] 

Parody, Kristen [Co, E] 

Philip, Preeti [Co] 

Pizza Hut, LLC [P] 

Pizza Hut Restaurants Asia Pte. Ltd. [E] 

PR Consultants, Ltd. [E] 

Quaife, Tom [Co] 

Quantis [S] 

RB International [Co] 

Ready Ink Communications [C, E] 

Results Direct [C, E] 

Rise Interactive Media & Analytics, LLC [C] 

River Global, LLC [E] 

Rogers, Paul [Co, E] 

Ruby Do, Inc. [C] 

Salesforce.com, Inc. [B] 

Schonrock Consulting [Co, E] 

School Nutrition Association [N] 

School Nutrition Foundation [N] 

62 
 

 

 

 

 

Shainwright Consulting & Research Group [E] 

Shamrock Foods Company [P] 

Sheryl Stern Sachman & Associates, LLC [N] 

Significant Outcomes [E] 

Sorenson, Carla [Co] 

Southeast United Dairy Industry Association 

d/b/a The Dairy Alliance [U] 

sparks & honey, LLC [C, K] 

Spire Research and Consulting [Co, E] 

Spredfast [K] 

Story Consulting [Co, E] 

Strategy Muse [K] 

Taco Bell Corporation [P] 

Taylor, Tammy [Co] 

Team Services, LLC [60] 

Technomic, Inc. [K] 

Texas A&M AgriLife Research [K] 

The Center for Generational Kinetics [N] 

The Context Network, LLC [S] 

The Economist Intelligence Unit, NA, Inc. [C] 

The Foundation for National Institutes of 

Health [N] 

The Fresh Approach, Inc. [C] 

The Kroger Company [P] 

The McCully Group [E, I] 

The Richards Group, Inc. [F, C] 

Think Healthy Group, Inc. [C] 

TNS Custom Research, Inc., d/b/a Kantar 

Worldpanel [K] 

TradeMoves, LLC [E, K] 

United Dairymen of Arizona [U] 

USDA Agriculture Research Service, Western 

Human Nutrition Research Center [K] 

Washington Dairy Products Commission [U] 

Watson Green, LLC [B, N, U] 

We Are All Human Foundation [B] 

Weber Shandwick Worldwide [C] 

World Wildlife Fund, Inc. [C] 

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

Yum! Restaurants International, Inc. [P] 

Zenith International, Ltd. [E, I] 

63 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2019 National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board 

Contracts Approved by USDA 

Contractor Name [Contract Activities] 

A = Advertising and Marketing 

K = Knowledge and Insights 

B = Business Development 

P = Partnerships 

37 Front Street, LLC [K] 

Abrams, Dr. Steven [K] 

Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 

Foundation [K] 

Alvarado, Reese [A] 

Anderson, Tyler [A] 

Anoia, Dave [A] 

Arc USA Chicago [A] 

Barr, Dr. Susan [K] 

Beashion, LLC [A] 

Barberet, Cedric [A] 

Bazilian, Inc. [A] 

Brier, Michele V. [B] 

Bluetext, LLC [B] 

Calabasas Pediatrics [A] 

Campbell, Ewald [A] 

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

Coastal Brand Management, LLC [A] 

Coffee and Champagne, LLC [A] 

Collective Bias [A] 

Command Entertainment Group, Inc. [A] 

Crazy Cool Media, LLC [A] 

Crème de la Crumb, LLC [A] 

Dairy Management Inc. [P] 

DoExtra CRM Solutions, LLC [B] 

Dunston, Rachel [A] 

Economos, Dr. Christina [K] 

Edwards, Tiffany [A] 

Egg Strategy, Inc. [K] 

eNRG Performance [A] 

Escobar, Su-Nui [A] 

Feeding America [P] 

64 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FeedFeed [A] 

Food for Thought Consulting, Inc. [K] 

Gail Golden Consulting, LLC [B] 

Garnett, Hayley [A] 

Gordon, Sam [A] 

Greenpoint Pictures [A] 

Green, Tiffany [A] 

Gregory, Lee [A] 

Gutierrez, Gustavo [A] 

Hamaguchi, Carly [A] 

Hartman Group [B] 

Hill, Dr. James [K] 

Hutchins, Emily [A] 

Hutzler, Jenny [A] 

Information Resources, Inc. [B] 

InTech Integrated Marketing Services [B] 

International Dairy Foods Association [B] 

Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. [A] 

James Madison University [K] 

JBJ Group Enterprises, LLC [A] 

Jiang, Xuechen [A] 

Joanne Davis Consulting, Inc. [K] 

Johnson, Dr. Rachael [K] 

JR15, Inc. [A] 

Kailyn Lowry, LLC [A] 

KGL Sports, LLC [A] 

Leidy, Dr. Heather [K] 

Lopez, Ilma [A] 

Lowe & Partners Worldwide, Inc., d/b/a 

sociedAD [A] 

May, Gavin [A] 

Milk and Honey, LLC [A] 

Melgoza, Maria [A] 

Molly Yeh, LLC [A] 

Neal, CJ [A] 

Nielsen Consumer Neuroscience, Inc. [K] 

Next Step Consulting Services [K] 

Nguyen, Jimmy [A] 

Oh Sweet Basil, LLC [A] 

One Funny Mother, Inc. [A] 

Otis, James [A] 

Parker Talent Management [A] 

Penner Media, Inc. [A] 

Petty, Maximillian [A] 

Pondera Advisors, LLC [B] 

Popular Pays, Inc. [A, B] 

65 
 

 

 

 

 

Prime Consulting Group [A] 

Protagonist, LLC [K] 

Rachel Paul Nutrition, LLC [A] 

Radius Global Market Research [K] 

Raffin, James [A] 

Red Spark Consulting, LLC [A] 

Richards, Doyin [A] 

Rinny Runs Endurance Sports, Inc. [A] 

Rizzo, Natalie [A] 

Roundarch Isobar, Inc. [A] 

Rubin, Ronald [B] 

Sansonetti, Damian [A] 

Saunders, Dr. Michael [K] 

Shapiro, Dr. Ilan [A] 

Shores, Summer [A] 

Smith, Abby[A] 

Smithfield Packaged Meats Sales Corp. [P] 

Snyder-Cohn, PC [B] 

Spectrum Group Productions, Inc. [B] 

SuperAwesome, Inc. [A] 

Super Mamas, LLC [A] 

Talent Resources [A] 

Tennis4Sloane, Inc. [A] 

Tetrick, Alison [A] 

The Colony Group, LLC [B] 

The Hershey Company [P] 

The Marketing Arm, Inc. [A] 

Thirty Handmade Days, Inc. [A] 

Thompson, Klay [A] 

United States Olympic Committee [P] 

United States Swimming, Inc. [P] 

Victory Marketing Agency, LLC [B] 

Watson, Eric [A] 

Watkinson Miller, PLLC [B] 

Wettstein, Bryce [A] 

Whistle Sports, Inc. [A] 

Whitney Port, Inc. [A] 

Wiggins, Elise [A] 

Wilkin, Claudette Aimee [A] 

Winter, Alli [A] 

Wiser Partners, LLC [B] 

Women/360 Management [A] 

66 
 

 

2019 National Dairy Foods Research Centers 

There are six university-affiliated National Dairy Foods Research Centers, established in 1987. 

They are supported by the National Dairy Council, and their mission is to conduct research, 

educate professionals, transfer knowledge to the industry, and create dairy products and 

ingredients with improved health, safety, quality, and functionality. 

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

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

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

Application labs within the centers assist in concept creation, prototype development, 

troubleshooting, scale-up, sensory work, and consumer evaluation. 

California Dairy Research Center 

• California Polytechnic State University – San Luis Obispo 

• David W. Everett, PhD, Center Director 

• www.dptc.calpoly.edu 

Midwest Dairy Foods Research Center 

• University of Minnesota – St. Paul 

• Iowa State University – Ames 

• South Dakota State University – Brookings 

• Lloyd Metzger, PhD, Center Director 

• www.midwestdairy.umn.edu 

67 
 

 

 

 

Northeast Dairy Foods Research Center 

• Cornell University 

• David M. Barbano, PhD, Center Director 

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

Southeast Dairy Foods Research Center 

• North Carolina State University 

• MaryAnn Drake, PhD, Center Director 

• www.sdfrc.ncsu.edu 

Western Dairy Center 

• Utah State University – Logan 

• Donald J. McMahon, PhD, Center Director 

• www.westerndairycenter.usu.edu 

Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research 

• University of Wisconsin – Madison 

• John Lucey, PhD, Center Director 

• www.wisc.edu 

68 
 

 

2019 Competitive Research Activities – Nutrition 

Principal Investigator, Institution, Project Title, and Status 

Lacy Alexander, PhD (Pennsylvania State University): Milk and Cheese Consumption and 

Human Microvascular Function [concluded 2019]. 

Connie W. Bales, PhD, RD (Duke University Medical Center): An Enhanced Protein (Dairy) 

Weight Loss Intervention for Dynapenic Obesity: Impact on Muscle Quality and Composition – 

Additional Experiments [ongoing 2019]. 

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

Atherosclerosis [concluded 2019]; A Review of the Health Benefits of Milk Phospholipids 

[commenced 2019]. 

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

Mediated by the Intestinal Barrier [commenced 2019]. 

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

with Metabolic Syndrome with Milk Fat Globule Membrane [concluded 2019]. 

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

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

[commenced 2019]. 

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

Antioxidant Defense in Aging: A Dietary Intervention Study [ongoing 2019]. 

69 
 

 

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

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

2019]. 

Sharon Donovan, PhD, RD, and Barbara Fiese, PhD (University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign): STRONG Kids 2: A Cells-to-Society Approach to Nutrition in Early Childhood 

[ongoing 2019]. 

Adam Drewnowski, PhD, Colin Rehm, PhD, MPH (Nutriscore), and Victor Fulgoni, PhD 

(Nutrition Impact): Replacing Dairy Fat with Pufas: A Food Level Modeling Study of Diet 

Quality and Nutrient Intake [concluded 2019]; Towards a New Nutrient Density Score: An NRF 

Nutrient Profiling Tool for Global Use [commenced 2019]. 

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

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

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

when Combined with Cereals [ongoing 2019]. 

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

Neighborhood Study [ongoing 2019]. 

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

in the General U.S. Population [ongoing 2019]. 

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

Research, Outreach, and Education [ongoing 2019]. 

70 
 

 

 

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

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

Obese Adolescent Girls [ongoing 2019]. 

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

Longitudinal Predictors of Cognitive Control and Early Academic Abilities among Preschool 

Children [ongoing 2019]. 

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

2019]; Dairy Fat Consumption and the Risk of Metabolic Syndrome: An Examination of the 

Unique Fatty Acids in Dairy. Narrative Review [concluded 2019]. 

Mario Kratz, PhD, MS (Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center - University of Washington): 

The Impact of Low-fat and Full-fat Dairy Consumption on Glucose Homeostasis [concluded 

2019]. 

Ronald M. Krauss, MD (Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute): Effects of a Modified 

High-Fat Mediterranean Dietary Pattern on Lipoprotein and Inflammatory Markers of CVD 

Risk in Adults [concluded 2019]; A Randomized Study of the Effect of Replacing SugarSweetened Soda by Reduced Fat Milk on Cardiometabolic Health in Male Adolescent Soda 

Drinkers [concluded 2019]. 

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

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

Foods [ongoing 2019]. 

71 
Andrew Mente PhD, MA (McMaster University [co-funding with Dairy Farmers of Canada]): 

Dairy Consumption and Cardiovascular Disease in Diverse Populations [ongoing 2019]. 

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

Active Children and Adolescents [ongoing 2019]. 

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

Butter and Other Fats and Oils in Framingham Offspring Study Adults [ongoing 2019]; Yogurt 

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

Critical Life Stages [ongoing 2019]. 

Paul Moughan, PhD (Massey University (New Zealand)): Determination of True Ileal Amino 

Acid Digestibility in Dietary Protein Sources Commonly Consumed by Humans: Toward an 

International Database of the Protein Quality of Human Foods [concluded 2019]. 

Kristin Nieman, PhD (Katalyses, LLC): Dairy and Inflammation: A Systematic Review of the 

Evidence [concluded 2019]. 

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

Association with Mortality Risk [commenced 2019]; Animal Protein Intake and Association with 

Mortality Risk [commenced 2019]. 

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

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

[commenced 2019]. 

72 
 

Stephen Ritchie, PhD (University of Alabama): Functionalized Mesh Materials for Listeria 

Mitigation in Milk and Milk-Derived Products Processed in Dairy Plants [ongoing 2019]. 

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

Vitamin D Status and Bone Measures [ongoing 2019]. 

Jeffery Schwimmer, MD (University of California, San Diego): In Children with Obesity, the 

Intake of Dairy-Derived Odd Chain and Branched Chain Fatty Acids is Inversely Associated 

with the Risk for Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease [ongoing 2019]. 

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

and Cardiac Phenotypes [ongoing 2019]. 

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

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

Collagen Protein vs. Isocaloric Placebo Maltodextrin Supplementation to Improve Recovery 

from Hospitalization for an Acute Medical Illness in Previously Independent Community 

Dwelling Older Adults [ongoing 2019]. 

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

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

Density and Risk of Fractures in Women Enrolled in the SWAN Cohort [ongoing 2019]; Effect of 

Dairy, Calcium and Vitamin D Intakes on Bone Health across the Lifespan: A Systematic Review 

and Consensus Report [ongoing 2019]. 

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

Lactose Constituents in Sports Nutrition [ongoing 2019]. 

73 
Connie Weaver, PhD (Purdue University): The Effect of Dairy vs. Plant-Based Beverages on 

Bioavailability of Calcium and Vascular Function [ongoing 2019]. 

74 
 

 

 

 

 

2019 Competitive Research Projects – Product 

Principal Investigator, Institution, Project Title, and Status 

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

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

Cheese and Obtain White Whey Powder [ongoing 2019]. 

Jayendra K. Amamcharla, PhD (Kansas State University): Altering the Microstructure to 

Improve Functionality of Dairy Powders Using Micro- and Nano-Bubbles [Concluded 2019]; 

Development and Evaluation of Selective Methods for Rapid Detection of Bacillus Endospores in 

Nonfat Dry Milk [ongoing 2019]; Development, Characterization, and Evaluation of Modified 

Milk Protein Concentrate with Enhanced Functional Properties [concluded 2019]. 

Jayendra K. Amamcharla, PhD (Kansas State University), and Lloyd Metzger, PhD (South 

Dakota State University): Understanding the Effects of Various Intrinsic and Extrinsic Factors 

on the Stability of Lactose-Rich Co-Product [ongoing 2019]. 

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

Effective Control of Listeria in High Risk Cheese [concluded 2019]; Evaluation Of Commercial 

Bio-Protective Cultures and their Ability to Inhibit the Outgrowth of Eukaryotic Spoilers in 

Cheese [concluded 2019]; Create Nationwide Food Safety Resources and Provide Support for 

Artisan/Farmstead Dairy Producers [ongoing 2019]. 

Sanjeev Anand, PhD (South Dakota State University): Scale Up of Hydrodynamic Cavitation as 

an In-Line Process Combined with Milk Pasteurization for Sporeformer Control [concluded 

2019]; To Identify Quorum Inhibitor Based Anti-Biofilm Molecules for Developing New 

Generation Membrane-Biofilm Cleaners for the Dairy Industry [ongoing 2019]. 

75 
 

 

 

 

David M. Barbano, PhD (Cornell University), and MaryAnne Drake, PhD (North Carolina State 

University): The Impact of Milk and Whey Protein Based Ingredients on Sensory and Physical 

Properties of Beverages [concluded 2019]; The Role of Protein, Protein Ratio, and Fat Content 

on Consumer Acceptance [concluded 2019]. 

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

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

[ongoing 2019]. 

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

Reduce Sporeformer Bacteria [ongoing 2019]. 

Stephanie Clark, PhD, and Tong Wang, PhD (Iowa State University): Technology for Novel and 

Scalable Isolation of Dairy Phospholipids (PL) and its Stabilization Against Lipid AutoOxidation [concluded 2019]. 

Michael Culhane, PhD (Dairy Advance Business Consulting): Optimizing Research Strategies 

for Whey Protein Technology Development [commenced 2019]. 

Dennis D’Amico, PhD (University of Connecticut): Determining the Efficacy of Glycolipids to 

Control Listeria Monocytogenes in Queso Fresco [ongoing 2019]. 

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

LED Light Engines to Preserve Dairy Quality [concluded 2019]. 

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

Laboratory Program [ongoing 2019]; The Role of Packaging on the Flavor of Fluid Milk 

76 
 

 

 

[concluded 2019]; Consumer Perception of Sustainability and its Relation to Labeling Dairy 

Foods and Ingredients [ongoing 2019]; MCC Purity and Functionality for Ingredient 

Applications [ongoing 2019]; Comparison of the Efficiency of Ceramic and Polymetric 

Microfiltration Removal of Whey Protein from Sweet Whey [ongoing 2019]; The Impact of Dairy 

Protein Fraction on the Physical and Sensory Properties of High Protein, Low Fat Vanilla Ice 

Cream [commenced 2019]; Determination of Child Preferences for Milkfat in Milk [commenced 

2019]. 

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

Dairy Center Application Laboratory Program [ongoing 2019]; Improving the Flavor of Cheese 

Made from Powdered Milk Using Buttermilk [ongoing 2019]. 

Kathleen Glass, PhD (University of Wisconsin-Madison): Inhibition of Clostridium Botulinum in 

Reduced-Sodium Pasteurized Cheese Products – Validation of Model 2 [concluded 2019]; Role 

of Listeria Monocytogenes in High-Moisture Cheese: Supplemental Funding to Determine the 

Effect of Propionic Acid [concluded 2019]; Safety of Reduced Sodium Processed Cheese 

[concluded 2019]; Mapping the Development of D- and Z-Values for L. Monocytogenes and 

Escherichia Coli O157:H7 in Cheese Milk to Reduce Pathogen Risks in Cheese Manufacture 

[commenced 2019]. 

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

from Dairy Co-Product Streams [ongoing 2019]. 

Lisbeth Goddik, PhD (Oregon State University): A Comprehensive Approach to Reducing the 

Risk of E. Coli in Bloomy Rind Cheeses: Product Reformulation and HPP [concluded 2019]. 

77 
 

 

 

Selvarani Govindasamy-Lucey, PhD (University of Wisconsin-Madison): Controlling Cheese 

Acidity by Adjustment of the Lactose to Protein Content of Cheese Milk [concluded 2019]; 

Extending the Shelf-Life Performance of Natural Mozzarella Cheese for Export Markets 

[concluded 2019]; High Quality Block Gouda by Dry Salting Method [ongoing 2019]; Innovative 

Powders and Cheesemaking Processes for the Overseas Manufacture of Recombined Cheeses 

[commenced 2019]; Effect of Depleting Caseins from Native Micelles on the Viscoelastic 

Behavior and Interfacial Properties of Skim Milk and Micellar Casein Solutions [commenced 

2019]; Shelf-Stable Snacks Made by Extrusion of Natural Cheeses [commenced 2019]. 

Federico Harte, PhD (Pennsylvania State University): High Pressure Jet Spray Drying to Create 

Novel Dairy Powders [ongoing 2019]; Prototype to Study the Effect of Ionic Environments on 

Casein Micelle Integrity [concluded 2019]; Effects of Calcium Chelation and Alteration of Serum 

Composition on Low Temperature Gelation of Concentrated Milk Protein Solutions [commenced 

2019]. 

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

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

Dessert [commenced 2019]. 

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

to Control Listeria in the Dairy Processing Environment [commenced 2019]. 

Shinya Ikeda, PhD (University of Wisconsin-Madison): Inhibiting the Formation of Poorly 

Soluble Skin Layers on High Milk Protein Powders [concluded 2019]. 

78 
 

 

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

Concentrate through Direct Steam Injection Cooking [Ongoing 2019]; Creating Cleaner Label 

Process Cheese Foods by Replacing Emulsifying Salts with Dairy Proteins [commenced 2019]. 

Mark Johnson, PhD (University of Wisconsin-Madison): Improving the Functionality and 

Quality of Large Cheese Blocks [ongoing 2019]; Use of Extrusion Technology for Snack Cheeses 

[ongoing 2019]; Innovative Approaches to Increase the Shelf Life of String Cheese and Fresh 

Cheese Curds [commenced 2019]. 

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

Applications Laboratory [ongoing 2019]; Designing Novel Cheese with High Levels of Intact 

Casein [concluded 2019]; Separation and Characterization of Phospholipids from Whey Protein 

Phospholipid Concentrate (WPPC), and Other Dairy Feed Streams [concluded 2019]; Impact of 

Microfiltration Retentates on Cheese Quality [ongoing 2019]; New Membrane Technology to 

Make High-Value Dairy Ingredients [ongoing 2019]; Controlled Pilot-Plant-Scale Evaluations 

of Charged Spiral-Wound Ultrafiltration Membranes [ongoing 2019]; Creating a Dairy 

Emulsifier Alternative like Lecithin [ongoing 2019]; Novel Ceramic Nanofiltration to Improve 

Coproduct Quality and Increase Utilization [commenced 2019]. 

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

Market [commenced 2019]. 

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

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

Consumption [commenced 2019]. 

79 
 

 

 

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

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

[commenced 2019]. 

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

Process for the Production of Food Ingredients from Whey Permeate [ongoing 2019]. 

Sergio Martinez-Monteagudo, PhD (South Dakota State University), and Tonya Schoenfuss, 

PhD (University of Minnesota): Effective Phospholipids Extraction from Dairy Byproducts using 

Switchable Solvents [commenced 2019]. 

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

Laboratories Program [ongoing 2019]; Scale-Up and Implementation of Strategies to Improve 

Quality and Process Efficiency During Manufacturing of Dairy Ingredients [concluded 2019]; 

Comparison of Functionality and Properties of Liquid Concentrates and Dried Dairy 

Ingredients [concluded 2019]. 

Carmen Moraru, PhD (Cornell University): Use of Forward Osmosis as a Non-Thermal Method 

of Concentration for the Manufacture of High-Quality Milk Concentrates and Powders 

[concluded 2019]. 

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

Constituents from Lactose-Rich Dairy Coproducts [commenced 2019]. 

80 
NIZO Food Research B.V. (Netherlands): Reduction of Spore Count in Milk Powder Production 

- Phase II of Development of an Improved Enumeration Method for Highly Heat Resistant 

Spores [ongoing 2019]. 

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

Fluid Cow’s Milk in The U.S. [commenced 2019]. 

Scott A. Rankin, PhD and George Huber, PhD (University of Wisconsin-Madison): Catalytic 

Conversion of Lactose-Rich Co-Products into Value-Added Components [concluded 2019]; 

Production of Lactose-Free Dairy Products by the Catalytic Hydrolysis of Lactose in Dairy 

Streams with Solid Acid Catalysts [commenced 2019]. 

Tonya Schoenfuss, PhD (University of Minnesota): Improving Sensory and Functional 

Properties of Reduced Sodium Low-Moisture Part-Skim Mozzarella Cheese Via Brine and Make 

Procedure Modifications [concluded 2019]. 

Clint Stevenson, PhD, and MaryAnne Drake, PhD (North Carolina State University): Food 

Safety Course for Artisan and Farmstead Cheesemakers [ongoing 2019]. 

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

Salmonella Spp. in Dairy Powders [commenced 2019]. 

Martin Wiedmann, PhD, DVM (Cornell University): Evaluation of Variation in Spore Count 

Methods and Determination of Optimal Parameters for Standardization of Milk Powder Spore 

Testing [concluded 2019]. 

81 
Haotian Zheng, PhD (California Polytechnic State University-San Luis Obispo): The Milk Fat 

Globule Membrane Generates Flavor in Cheese Made from Recombined Milk [concluded 2019]. 

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

Milk Powder by Supplementing Soluble Caseins [commenced 2019]. 

82 
 

 

 

 

2019 Competitive Research Activities – Sustainability 

Principal Investigator, Institution, Project Title, and Status 

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

Impact – Phase II [ongoing 2019]. 

Lehmann, Johannes, PhD (Cornell University): Thermo-Chemical Technologies for ManureBased Products - Education and Outreach for the Dairy Industry [commenced 2019]. 

Ermias Krebreab, PhD (University of California - Davis): Feed Additives as a Strategic 

Approach to Reduce Enteric Methane Production in Cattle [ongoing 2019]. 

Meredith Niles, PhD (University of Vermont): Assessing Dairy Farmer Decisions and Barriers 

for Adopting Sustainable Manure Management Systems [concluded 2019]. 

M.B. de Ondarza, PhD (Paradox Nutrition): Amounts and Environmental Stewardship Benefits 

of By-Product Feed Ingredients used in U.S. Dairy Cow Nutrition [commenced 2019]. 

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

Formulation and Feed Allocation Modules [commenced 2019]. 

Mathew Ruark, PhD (University of Wisconsin-Madison): Climate Change Mitigation and 

Adaptation in Dairy Production Systems of the Great Lakes Region [concluded 2019]. 

83 
 

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

Environmental Consequences of Dairy Removal from U.S. Agriculture [ongoing 2019]; Supply of 

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

Specific Scales [concluded 2019]. 

84