U.S. Department of Agriculture

Report to Congress

on the

Dairy Promotion

and Research Program

and the

Fluid Milk

Processor Promotion Program

2016 Program Activities
i

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., Ph.D.

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

Consumer Economics Research Center

Texas A&M University

Department of Agricultural Economics

2124 TAMU

College Station, TX 77843

(979) 845-5911

Email: AFCERC@tamu.edu

http://AFCERC.tamu.edu

National Dairy Promotion and Research Board

Dairy Management, Inc.

10255 West Higgins Road, Suite 900

Rosemont, IL 60018

(847) 803-2000

http://www.dairy.org

National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board

1250 H Street, NW, Suite 950

Washington, DC 20005

(202) 737-0153

http://www.milklife.com
ii

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program 

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

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

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

information may be made available in languages other than English. 

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

Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

USDA over other similar products not named.

February 2019
iii

Contents

Contact Information..........................................................................................i

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

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

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........................................................................................................18

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

Nutrition Education Programs..............................................................................40

Additional Information: 2016 Approved Contracts, National Dairy Foods Research Centers, 

Research Activities, and Audits............................................................................45
1

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, 2016, 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 $329.1 million in 2016. The Dairy 

Board portion of assessments totaled $116.1 million and the Qualified Dairy Product Promotion, 

Research, or Nutrition Education Programs (QPs) totaled $213 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. 

In August 2016, USDA issued a final rule that amended the Dairy Order by modifying the 

number of Dairy Board importer members. The total number of importer members was reduced 

from 2 members to 1 member, and the domestic Dairy Board members remained the same at 36. 

The total number of Dairy Board members is 37. The Dairy Order requires the Secretary, at least 

once every 3 years, to review the average volume of domestic dairy product production 

compared to the average volume of dairy imports and if warranted, reapportion Dairy Board 

importer representation to reflect the proportional shares of the U.S. market served by domestic 

production and imported products. 

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

activities can be found in Chapter 4. 

Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Program

Mandatory assessments collected under the Fluid Milk Act totaled $94.7 million in 2016. 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 Board focused on driving 
2

milk consumption and sales through increasing consumer relevance and trust in fluid milk 

through a renewed focus on helping build milk brands, working with industry partners, launching 

new campaigns promoting the positive attributes of milk’s nutrition, optimizing national 

partnerships, long-range planning, and a strategic roadmap to stem the decline in fluid milk 

consumption. 

During 2016, the Fluid Milk Board launched a strategic, first-of-its kind partnership with the 

United States Olympic Committee, naming white milk as an official sponsor of the Olympic 

Games through 2020. The Fluid Milk Board promoted a variety of messages and ads 

highlighting milk’s 8 grams of protein per 8-ounce serving. Through these messages, the Fluid 

Milk Board sought to educate the general market and Hispanic consumers on the importance of 

protein in the morning and milk’s essential nutrients. The Fluid Milk Board also continued its 

efforts to position chocolate milk as the recovery beverage of choice for athletes after strenuous 

exercise and delivered its 1 millionth gallon of milk to families in need through the Great 

American Milk Drive.

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, $8.7 million was returned to the California Milk Processor Board. The 

California Milk Processor Board uses the funds to conduct its promotion activities, which 

include the got milk® advertising campaign. The activities of the Fluid Milk Processor 

Promotion Program are presented in the Fluid Milk Board section in Chapter 1. 

USDA Activities 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional USDA responsibilities include nominating and appointing board members, amending 

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

program management reviews. The boards reimbursed the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, 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 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 2016 promotion activities on the 

consumption of fluid milk, cheese, butter, all dairy products, and dairy exports and includes 
3

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

every dollar invested in demand-enhancing activities, the BCRs for producers were as follows: 

(1) fluid milk - $4.11, (2) cheese - $4.81, and (3) butter - $22.74. The BCR for fluid milk 

processors attributed to fluid milk promotion activities is $3.73.
4

Chapter 1

The Dairy and Fluid Milk Promotion Programs 

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

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

activities of each board. 

1. National Dairy Promotion and Research Board

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

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

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

approving budgets, and monitoring the program results. 

The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) appoints 37 members to the Dairy Board, 36 of 

whom are dairy producers, each representing 1 of 12 geographic regions within the United 

States, and 1 representing dairy importers. The appointments are made from nominations 

submitted by individual applicants, producer organizations, importer organizations, general farm 

organizations, and QPs. Dairy Board members must be active dairy producers or dairy 

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

consecutive terms. 

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

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

limitation required by the Dairy Order. An independent auditor’s report for 2015 and 2016 can 

be found in the Additional Information section of this report. 

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

Committee. The Finance Committee consists of the Dairy Board officers and appointees named 

by the Dairy Board Chair. The Dairy Board Treasurer chairs the Finance Committee. The full 

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

program committees with the United Dairy Industry Association (UDIA).

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

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

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

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

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

expand dairy markets. The DMI Board of Directors comprises all Dairy Board (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. 
5

During 2016, DMI continued to implement a national staffing structure to plan and execute the 

national programs. 

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

Research Centers and one Nutrition Institute provided much of the research in 2016. 

Universities and other industry researchers throughout the United States compete for these 

research contracts. A description of the research objectives and locations can be found in the 

Additional Information section of this report. 

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

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

members to the following 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 2016, the Dairy Board and 

UDIA Board met jointly six times.

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

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

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

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

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

implemented in 2016. 

National Dairy Council

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

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

communication for more than 100 years. NDC provides timely, scientific sound nutrition 

information to media, physicians, dietitians, nurses, educators, consumers, and other health 

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

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

insights to industry for new dairy product innovation. 

Health professional outreach remained a critical component of NDC. The American Academy of 

Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Academy of Nutrition and 

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

Hispanic Medical Association all continued their support and partnership with NDC. 

In 2016, NDC hosted Honor the Harvest, a farm to table summit highlighting the connection 

between nutrition, health and wellness, and agriculture. Honor the Harvest focuses on using 

food for its highest purpose and moving nutrients through the food system – from people, to 

animals, and back to the land – instead of going to waste in a landfill. Over 200 attendees from 

45 States gathered at Fair Oaks Farms in Indiana for a hands-on learning experience in the areas 

of animal care, on-farm practices, dairy nutrition science, and health and wellness. 
6

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

“The Dairy Report” (www.thedairyreport.com). Blog contributors include NDC registered 

dietitians, Ph.D. nutritionists, and communication experts, as well as guest nutrition and health 

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

on dairy-related nutrition and health research.

Fuel Up to Play 60

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

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

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

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

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

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

During the 2016 school year, FUTP60 reached more than 38 million students in more than 

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

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

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

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

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

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

making healthy changes throughout the student body.

GenYOUth Foundation

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

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

eating and physical activity behaviors. GenYOUth works with schools, communities, and 

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

and wellness arena, including FUTP60. 

GenYOUth continued its Adventure Capital (AdCap) program in 2016. AdCap is an 

entrepreneurship program designed to empower students to create and pitch ideas, for funding, to 

improve nutrition and physical activity in their schools and communities. Through a partnership 

with software solutions company SAP, students design projects on a digital platform and team up 

with mentors. In 2016, students participated in a series of regional competitions hosted by 

GenYOUth and SAP. Ten winners were provided a $1,000 grant to bring their AdCap projects 

to life and two students were chosen to compete in a national competition. The winning project 

was a “Community Wellness App” to track and award points to students for their healthy 

lifestyle choices. The winning student, an eighth grader from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, won a 

$10,000 grant to build the app. 

In 2016, GenYOUth, FUTP60, the NFL and USDA, announced the availability of $35 million in 

grants to schools nationwide to purchase kitchen equipment and to offer students better access to 

nutritious foods. More than 30 million students rely on USDA’s National School Lunch 
7

Program and School Breakfast Program for one to two meals per day, but 88 percent of schools 

reported lacking at least one piece of equipment needed to serve healthier foods. The grants will 

allow schools to purchase equipment and meet national nutrition standards and provide healthy 

meals with more whole grains, fruits, vegetables, lean protein, low-fat dairy, and less sodium and 

fat. 

U.S. Dairy Export Council

DMI’s export enhancement and ingredient programs are implemented by the U.S. Dairy Export 

Council (USDEC). In 2016, USDEC continued to focus on maximizing its resources to 

members and aligning with a shifting global business environment. USDEC has representatives 

in 10 offices who provide support in identifying opportunities and monitoring regulatory 

activities: Washington, D.C.; Mexico City, Mexico; São Paulo, Brazil; Brussels, Belgium; 

Beirut, Lebanon; Tokyo, Japan; Seoul, South Korea; Hong Kong and Shanghai, China; Ho Chi 

Minh City, Vietnam; and Singapore. USDEC is headquartered in Arlington, Virginia. 

USDEC’s ingredient program supports dairy product and nutrition research, ingredient 

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

Dairy, food, and beverage manufacturers use this program to locate knowledge, laboratory, and 

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

Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy

In 2008, dairy producers, processors, and manufacturers entered into an unprecedented 

agreement to form the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy (Innovation Center). The goal of the 

Innovation Center is to collaborate on industry issues and accelerate industry innovation 

throughout the supply chain to increase sales in the competitive consumer marketplace. 

In 2016, the Innovation Center Board of Directors continued to gather insights to better 

understand current and future issues and opportunities facing the dairy industry and set priorities. 

Based on the assessment, the Innovation Center developed a social responsibility plan with seven 

focus areas, and corresponding committees, to benefit the dairy community, its customers, and 

consumers:

• Sustainable Nutrition

• Food Safety

• People and Community

• Animal Care 

• Environmental Stewardship

• Global Insights and Innovation*

• Communications*

*The Global Insights and Innovation and Communications committees play crosscutting roles to 

inform and support efforts in each area. 

The committees set goals and aligned efforts on best practices and next steps. 
8

Dairy Sustainability Alliance

During 2016, the Innovation Center evolved the Sustainability Council, originally formed in 

2008, into the Dairy Sustainability Alliance (Alliance) to more closely align with the priorities of 

the Innovation Center strategic plan. The Alliance is a multi-stakeholder group with 

representatives from across the dairy community who are committed to advancing dairy 

sustainability and social responsibility. The goal of the Alliance is to provide a forum where 

member organizations can share knowledge, collaborate on issues affecting the industry at large, 

and accelerate progress toward common objectives. 

The Alliance represented 108 member organizations in 2016, including crop and dairy farmers, 

processors, manufacturers, retailers, suppliers, and representatives from nonprofits, trade 

organizations, government, and academia. 

The Innovation Center launched a portfolio of projects in 2009 to reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions across the dairy supply chain and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent 

from a 2007 baseline by 2020. The following six projects have since been completed as of 2016:

• Farm Smart – The methodology and science within the Farm Smart tool became the 

foundation for a new Environmental Stewardship module within the National Dairy 

FARM Program. The module integrates Farm Smart’s science-based models to provide 

dairy farmers, cooperatives, and companies with a more streamlined, single source for 

voluntary on-farm assessment and communication of greenhouse gas emissions and 

energy use on dairy farms.

• Farm Energy Efficiency – Elements of this program were incorporated into Farm Smart 

as part of the Environmental Stewardship module described above.

• Dairy Plant Smart – The Dairy Plant Smart project focused on helping processors and 

manufacturers measure the energy and greenhouse gas emissions intensity of fluid milk 

production. With the development and availability of widely adopted resources to 

measure the indicators defined in the Stewardship and Sustainability Framework for U.S. 

Dairy document, the Dairy Plant Smart tool and project were completed in 2016. In 2016 

a processor-led team of Alliance members worked to develop a processor handbook with 

guidance on consistently calculating and reporting metrics with the framework.

• Dairy Fleet Smart – The goal of the Dairy Fleet Smart project was to accelerate the 

adoption of transportation and distribution practices that reduce fuel consumption, costs, 

and greenhouse gas emissions. The project built on the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s SmartWay program by providing recommended management practices and 

improvement strategies for dairy. As the SmartWay program continued to evolve, a 

dairy-specific version was no longer needed and the project concluded.

• Dairy Power/Biogas Capture and Transport – These projects concentrated on 

lowering the barriers to adoption of anaerobic digester technologies and resulted in the 

creation of an organization, Newtrient, focused on assessing and advancing manure 
9

management technologies, acting as a business incubator for manure-based products and 

actively designing and implementing market mechanisms to allow dairy farmers to 

recover economic value for voluntarily assisting others in achieving their pollution 

prevention obligations. 

Industry and Image Relations

Today’s consumers are less connected to food production and receive mixed messages through 

media about the agriculture industry. In 2016, DMI continued www.dairygood.org as a platform 

for the dairy community to collectively come together and tell its story using unified messaging. 

The website’s goal is to put a “face” on the dairy industry and amplify conversations taking place 

in other dairy and social media channels, such as NDC and FUTP60, to demonstrate dairy’s 

commitment to food and nutrition security, and drive conversations to promote consumer 

confidence in the dairy industry and its products. 

In 2016, DMI continued the development of its Acres + Avenues YouTube video series. Acres +

Avenues pairs urban millennials with dairy farmer millennials through job shadowing 

experiences to show shared values between the two seemingly different participants. The 2016 

videos followed the job shadowing experiences of a Los Angeles tattoo artist and Virginia dairy 

farmer, and YouTube sensation Flula Borg and a Florida dairy farmer. 

DMI continued its Issues Management and Crisis Readiness programs in 2016. DMI staff and 

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

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

questioned. As needed, the network of representatives responded to media requests, trained 

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

distributed media alerts with key messages to maintain consistent industry-wide responses. 

Primary areas of focus included animal welfare, environment, sustainability, food safety, child 

nutrition, and modern farming practices. 

II. National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board

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

Fluid Milk Act, administers a fluid milk promotion and consumer education program funded by 

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

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

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

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

attitudes and purchase behavior of Americans regarding fluid milk.

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

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

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

from the general public. The members of the Fluid Milk Board serve 3-year terms and are 

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

company shall be represented on the Board by more than three representatives. Fluid Milk 
10

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 2016.

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 5-percent-ofrevenue limitation required by the Fluid Milk Order. An independent auditor’s report for 2016 

can be found in the Additional Information section of this report. 

Medical Advisory Board

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

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

meet in 2016. The MAB provides guidance to the Fluid Milk Board’s development of key 

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

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

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

Nutrition and Dietetics, and the American Heart Association. 

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

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

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

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

recovery and rehydration. 

Fluid Milk Programs

I. Milk Life Committee – General Market and Hispanic

In 2016, MilkPEP focused on white milk marketing efforts to drive sales through relevance and 

consumer confidence by launching a breakthrough, long-term partnership with the United States 

Olympic Committee (USOC). A survey conducted by MilkPEP, among Team USA athletes, 

affirmed 9 out of 10 Olympic athletes grew up drinking milk. MilkPEP used this claim in the 

new Built Not Born campaign, showcasing Olympic athletes and hopefuls across the United 

States in their athletic dream and the importance of milk and its role in their diet. Appropriately 

dubbed Team Milk, this promotional campaign and roster of athletes engaged consumers in a 

new way, increased awareness of milk’s benefits, and improved milk attitudes and encouraged 

consumption of milk by kids among moms. These athletes were featured in social, digital, 
11

online, television, and print advertisements, garnering over 3.5 billion impressions. More than 

60 milk processor brands participated nationwide in this partnership through on-package assets, 

customized social content, consumer promotions, and athlete engagements. The 5-year USOC 

partnership will continue through the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo, Japan. 

MilkPEP’s popular Milk Life consumer campaign continued to focus on fluid milk and its 

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

every day. In 2016, MilkPEP’s white milk marketing efforts continued to focus on 

reinvigorating milk’s relevancy and the importance of getting enough protein in the mornings, 

including the 8 grams of protein in every 8-ounce serving of milk, by launching the new My 

Morning Protein program. The My Morning Protein program touted milk’s protein benefits as a 

morning pairing with other high-protein foods and promoted the concept of consuming 25-30 

grams of protein before noon. The first phase of this campaign included national advertising, 

retail messaging, milk brand tools, digital and social content, partnerships, and messaging from 

over 70 food, nutrition, fitness and mom influencers. More than 35 milk processors and industry 

partners shared more than 200 pieces of content through their social channels, promoting milk’s 

role in getting enough protein in the morning. 

The Milk Life campaign continued its efforts to improve consumers’ perceptions of milk and 

inspiring them to choose milk for themselves and their families. Through a targeted organic 

outreach program, MilkPEP was able to reinforce the varieties of milk available to consumers, 

including organic, conventional, and value-added products, all containing the same essential 

nutrients, while highlighting organic-specific messaging communicating the USDA requirements 

of organic milk production. 

In 2016, MilkPEP, in partnership with Feeding America, continued the Great American Milk 

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

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

America’s food banks because it’s perishable. As a result, Feeding America is only able to 

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

Milk Drive encouraged consumers across the United States to donate milk to families in need 

through online or in-store donations. In 2016, the program reached a significant milestone, 

exceeding 1 million gallons of milk donated to families in need. The Great American Milk 

Drive’s new campaign, Feed a Childhood, was instrumental in connecting with consumers and 

motivating support, resulting in 14,358 stores participating in the program, a 68-percent increase 

from 2015. The program partnered with Entemann’s, MARS, Pillsbury, Del Monte, Lender’s, 

and Cheryl’s Cookies in 2016, generating nearly 1 billion media impressions nationwide, and 

increasing the awareness and need for more milk in food banks. 

In 2016, MilkPEP continued the Get Real campaign, an industrywide social advocacy initiative 

focused on driving consumer awareness of the health benefits of milk, via social and traditional 

media. This campaign, designed to improve consumer’s confidence in milk and to correct 

common milk myths, engaged in efforts with new television, digital, and social promotions 

comparing ingredients and nutritional content in milk and milk alternatives. The campaign 

continued to promote milk’s benefits by reminding consumers of milk’s wholesome simplicity 

and the nutritional and lifestyle benefits of consuming milk. 
12

MilkPEP continued its Hispanic promotional efforts in 2016, as part of the industry’s outreach to 

the growing Hispanic population. MilkPEP maintained synergy with its general market 

consumer campaign, Milk Life, by leveraging the importance of protein in the diet and using 

ambassadors of strength to inspire Hispanic viewers with the Lo Que Nos Hace Fuertes (What 

Makes Us Strong) initiative. Thorough a partnership with Team Milk member and silver 

medalist Danell Leyva, the Hispanic campaign continued to promote the importance of milk’s 

role in proper nutrition and, especially protein, for reaching your full potential.

II. Built with Chocolate Milk Committee 

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

message for exercise recovery to athletes in 2016, focusing promotional efforts on swimming, 

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

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

nationwide seeking recovery after a tough workout. MilkPEP continued its partnership with USA 

Swimming, as the “Official Recovery Beverage of USA Swimming.” The television, print, instore, and digital campaign featured Olympic medalists Tyler Clary and Jessica Hardy, 

highlighting chocolate milk’s important role in the recovery of competitive swimmers. This 

partnership garnered over 3.3 million impressions and 20 milk brands participated in the 

partnership through consumer promotions, on-pack assets, social posts, and providing milk 

deliveries. 

In 2016, Built with Chocolate Milk continued its partnership with United States Women’s 

National Soccer Team forward, Kelley O’Hara, showcasing how elite athletes recover with 

chocolate milk. The campaign with Kelley O’Hara included a four-part workout video where 

Kelley showed fans how to get toned and how to recover with chocolate milk. The videos 

received over 400,000 views and over 2 million impressions. 

In 2016, Built with Chocolate Milk continued its partnership with Kevin Love of the Cleveland 

Cavaliers, promoting chocolate milk as his recovery beverage of choice. The campaign included 

real-time conversations around Cleveland Cavaliers basketball games and social media 

conversations during NBA Playoffs and Championship basketball games, generating a total of 

3.5 million impressions. 

For the fifth consecutive year, the Built with Chocolate Milk campaign continued its successful 

partnership with the Rock ‘n’ Roll Marathon, engaging Team Chocolate Milk members 

consisting of over 120 athletes who engaged their audiences through social media about their 

training techniques, race information, and recovery with lowfat chocolate milk. This grassroots 

effort generated over 8.2 million impressions and 16 processor brands participated in the 

marathon events by handing out nearly 220,000 samples of lowfat chocolate milk to athletes as 

they crossed the finish line.

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

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

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

spokespeople wearing branded gear during races and participating in media interviews. The 
13

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

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

and Luke McKenzie, by supporting them on social media channels throughout 2016. 

Industry Collaboration and Program Measurement

In 2016, MilkPEP continued to leverage its partnership with DMI by strengthening efforts to 

build consumer confidence and trust through joint partnerships including The Great American 

Milk Drive and Milk to My Plate. By working closely to identify joint opportunities and areas of 

synergies, MilkPEP and DMI collaborated on initiatives, communications, promotional milk 

sales and consumption, while increasing efficiencies and effectiveness across both programs. 

MilkPEP and DMI focused on uniting the dairy industry, with one voice, around common issues 

and making milk relevant for consumers. 

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

consumer campaign. MilkPEP conducted research that shaped the direction of the consumerfacing Milk Life and My Morning Protein programs, as well as the new Built Not Born campaign. 

Additionally, MilkPEP continued to conduct research on the Built with Chocolate Milk recovery 

message strategy, aiding the effort in campaign development. 

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

Channel Tracking helped MilkPEP identify what is happening in milk consumption and develop 

new plans to drive better business practices. MilkPEP also started developing a 3-year strategy 

to help milk remain competitive in the dairy case, as new product segments emerge and shopper 

behavior continues to change, including the emergence of e-commerce. 
14

Chapter 2

USDA Activities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The AMS Dairy Program ensures the collection, accounting, auditing, and 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. 

Dairy Promotion and Research Program Oversight

Collections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contracts

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

Secretary. During 2016, the AMS Dairy Program reviewed and approved 344 Dairy Board and 

DMI agreements, amendments, and annual plans. 
15

Contractor Audits

During 2016, DMI retained the certified public accounting firm of Ernst & Young to audit the 

records of the following contractors: Arab Marketing & Finance, Inc.; Daniel J. Edelman, Inc.; 

McDonald’s USA, LLC; Team Services, LLC; and the University of Wisconsin. No material 

exceptions were found. 

USDA Foreign Agricultural Service 

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

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

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

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

conformance with the Dairy Act, Dairy Order, and with established USDA policies. In 2016, the 

AMS Dairy Program reviewed and approved 93 USDEC contracts. 

Organic Exemption

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

still responsible for remittance of State assessments. In 2016, the amount of exempted 

assessments was $1,352,000. The Dairy Order requires organic producers to re-apply annually 

to continue to receive the exemption. 

USDA Dairy Promotion and Research Program Expenses

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

for the cost of administrative oversight and compliance audit activities. In 2016, the AMS Dairy 

Program’s oversight expenses totaled $613,836, and the Federal Milk Market Administrators 

incurred $250,363 in expenses for verification audits conducted on behalf of the Dairy Board.

Qualified Programs

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

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

active programs prior to the Dairy Act. In 2016, 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 2016 in Chapter 4.
16

National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board Oversight

Program Development

The Fluid Milk Board contracted with the Interpublic Group Agencies of Foote, Cone & Belding 

Worldwide, Inc.; 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. 

Contracts

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

be approved by the Secretary. During 2016, the AMS Dairy Program approved 123 Fluid Milk 

Board agreements, amendments, contracts, and annual plans.

Contractor Audits

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

Hamilton & Associates, P.C. (Snyder Cohn), in 2016 to audit the records of: Foote, Cone & 

Belding Worldwide, Inc., Campbell-Ewald, and CMGRP, Inc. d/b/a Weber Shandwick. Snyder 

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

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

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

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 2016, the amount of exempted fluid milk 

assessments was approximately $1,930,000. 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 2016, the AMS Dairy Program’s 
17

oversight expenses totaled $420,315, and the Federal Milk Market Administrators incurred 

$132,765 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 – 2016 Activities 

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 quantitative evaluation of the effectiveness 

of the dairy and fluid milk promotion programs. Due to prior data revisions, the results from the 

2016 report are not comparable to previous reports.

Background on the Promotion Program

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

opportunities to expand dairy markets.

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

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

fluid milk products produced in the United States. Fluid milk processors marketing more than 3 

million pounds of fluid milk per month pay a 20-cent-per-hundredweight assessment on fluid 

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

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

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

Program.

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

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

State, regional, local, or importer promotion programs certified annually by the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture to 

receive a portion of the funds generated under the National Dairy Promotion and Research Program.
19

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 the key question in mind: Have the demandenhancing activities conducted by dairy producers, importers, and fluid milk processors actually 

increased the demand for fluid milk and manufactured dairy products?

Historically, this question has been answered through econometric studies 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 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 is often taken as an indication of the impact of a program. For example, a 

1-dollar investment that returns 5 dollars in incremental revenue generates a BCR of 5 to 1. 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. Usually, metrics 

other than the BCR, such as impacts on consumption and exports, are more revealing and useful 

as indicators of program effectiveness.

The objectives of this report are threefold: 

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 BCRs corresponding to promotion in each of those markets for dairy producers 

and fluid milk processors; and

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

assessments.

This project covers the time period of 1995 to 2016 and captures the joint efforts of DMI, 

MilkPEP, and the QPs. The shares of each promotion entity of demand-enhancing expenditures 

over this period are as follows: (1) DMI – 25.56 percent; (2) MilkPEP – 24.18 percent; and (3) 

QPs – 50.26 percent.

Summary of the Findings

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

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

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

with the programmatic activities of producers, as well as on 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, 
20

and industry relations.

The BCRs expressed in terms of producer profit at the farm level were calculated to be $4.11 for 

every dollar invested in demand-enhancing activities for fluid milk; $4.81 for every dollar 

invested in demand-enhancing activities for cheese; and $22.74 for every dollar invested in 

demand-enhancing activities for butter. The BCR of export promotion was $8.10 per dollar 

invested. On a fat and skim solids basis, a significant positive relationship existed between the 

demand for all dairy products and the advertising and promotion expenditures associated with 

the National Programs. The aggregate all-dairy BCR was 4.78, meaning that, on average, 

producer profit increased by $4.78 for each dollar invested in demand-enhancing activities.

The United States imported between $3.0 billion and $3.5 billion in dairy products over the 

period 2012 to 2016. Cheese products accounted for about just over 40 percent, by value, of 

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

National Dairy Promotion and Research Program. Import assessment funds totaled between 

$3.41 million and $4.76 million per year between 2012 and 2016. The import assessment has 

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

MilkPEP, and the QPs.

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

collected from importers. Unit values of cheese imports amounted to roughly $3.16 per pound 

on average over the period 2012 to 2016. Hence, incremental revenue to importers solely from 

cheese attributable to the import assessment totaled roughly $4.4 million.

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

BCR was calculated using the milk cost as a proxy for cost of production. The fluid milk 

processor BCR was $3.73 for every dollar invested in demand-enhancing activities for fluid 

milk.

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 

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 
21

primarily related to demand-enhancing efforts.

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

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

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

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

(2) attracting partner 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 QPs over the period 1995 

to 2016 are depicted in Table 3-1 and in Figure 3-1. On average, slightly more than $365 million 

in total was spent annually by the respective entities over this period and between $400 million 

and $415 million since 2013. Historically, the nominal shares of promotional expenditures on 

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

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

Program Promotion Program Expenditures, 1995 to 20161

1

Thousands of dollars.

*QP data previously revised. 

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

Year DMI MilkPEP QPs Total

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2004* $90,171 $97,167 $172,667 $360,005

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

2006 $73,067 $92,029 $182,443 $347,539

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

2008* $99,051 $97,003 $181,092 $377,146

2009* $94,071 $95,109 $187,992 $377,172

2010* $87,512 $98,316 $166,459 $352,287

2011* $88,456 $91,289 $214,763 $394,508

2012* $82,360 $91,893 $216,484 $390,737

2013* $93,184 $89,633 $216,844 $399,611

2014* $102,728 $83,426 $211,919 $397,623

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

2016 $102,712 $84,858 $227,834 $415,404
22

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

Program Promotion Expenditures, 1995 to 2016

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

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.

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 2016 are 

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

$109.6 million per quarter, averaging $82.3 million.

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

MilkPEP, and QPs on a quarterly basis from 1995 to 2016 are exhibited in Figure 3-3. Over that 

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

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

period, nominal seasonally-adjusted demand-enhancing expenditures for fluid milk were $34.9 

million per quarter.

As exhibited in Figure 3-4, 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. 

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

DMI MilkPEP QPs
23

Dollars

On average, expenditures on cheese marketing and promotion were $12.0 million during this 

period. From the fourth quarter of 2008 to the end of 2016, nominal quarterly expenditures on 

cheese marketing and promotion activities ranged from $8.1 million to $17.1 million, averaging 

$11.9 million per quarter. Over the entire period from 1995 to 2016, nominal seasonally adjusted 

demand-enhancing expenditures for cheese averaged $16.4 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

slightly more than $1.2 million per quarter over the period 1995 to 2016. 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 markets is important.

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

by DMI, MilkPEP, and QPs, 1995 to 2016*

*

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

market and economic research.

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

authors.

50,000,000

60,000,000

70,000,000

80,000,000

90,000,000

100,000,000

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
24

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

DMI, MilkPEP, and QPs, 1995 to 2016

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

authors.

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

and QPs, 1995 to 2016

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

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

50,000,000

60,000,000

70,000,000

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

4,000,000

8,000,000

12,000,000

16,000,000

20,000,000

24,000,000

28,000,000

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Dollars

Dollars
25

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

by DMI and QPs, 1995.1 to 2016.4

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

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 $5.1 million (Figure 3-6a). These 

expenditures trended upward from 1995 to 2016, averaging about $2.4 million per quarter over 

this period. As exhibited in Figure 3-6b, nominal seasonally adjusted funds awarded through 

USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) directed to exports of dairy products on a quarterly 

basis varied from just under $310,000 to about $1.9 million, averaging nearly $1.1 million per 

quarter over the period of 1997 to 2016. The funds are awarded through USDA FAS’ 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 $6.7 

million per quarter, averaging $3.4 million on a quarterly basis over the same period from 1995 

to 2016 (Figure 3-6c). 

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

Research Program since April 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).

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Dollars
26

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

DMI, 1995.1 to 2016.4

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

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

through the FMD/MAP Programs, 1997.1 to 2016.4*

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

interpolations were made for these years.

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

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

0

400,000

800,000

1,200,000

1,600,000

2,000,000

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Dollars Dollars
27

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

Adjusted) by DMI and the FMD/MAP Programs, 1995.1 to 2016.4

Source: Calculations by authors.

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 $3.41 million and $4.76 million per year from 2012 to 

2016. The total funds collected declined modestly from $3.52 million to $3.41 million between 

2012 and 2014 and then rose to $4.18 million in 2015 and $4.76 million in 2016. The 

cumulative import assessment funds totaled $20.34 million from September 2011 to December 

2016. On a monthly basis, funds from the dairy import assessment ranged from $210,086 to 

$493,975, averaging $317,787 over the period of September 2011 to December 2016 (Figure 3-

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

expenditures made by DMI, MilkPEP, and the QPs between 2012 and 2016.

Trends in Dairy Use

Fluid milk consumption trended downward on a per capita basis between 1995 and 2016 (Figure 

3-8). 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. milk consumption has declined 

roughly 25 percent since 1975 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 2016, the commercial per capita disappearance of cheese ranged from 6.4 

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Dollars
28

pounds per quarter to 9.6 pounds per quarter, averaging about 7.9 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 pounds per quarter to 1.7 pounds per quarter, averaging roughly 1.2 pounds. 

U.S. butter consumption on a per capita basis was highest in the fourth quarter of 2016.

On average over 1995 to 2016, the per capita commercial disappearance of all dairy products on 

a fat basis amounted to 150 pounds per quarter, ranging from 136 pounds to 169 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 2016, quarterly dairy exports on a fat basis averaged nearly 1,260 pounds and 

slightly more than 5,000 pounds on a skim-solids basis (Figure 3-13). The United States 

imported between $3.0 billion and $3.5 billion in dairy products in each of the last 5 years (Table 

3-2). Cheese products accounted for slightly more than one-third (by value) of the dairy imports 

(Figure 3-14). Cheese imports as a percent of total dairy imports were highest in 2013 at 37.5 

percent and lowest in 2012 at 35.5 percent. 

Given these trends, 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. The results are reported in the next section.

Figure 3-7. Monthly Dairy Import Assessment Funds, September 2011 to December 2016

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture
29

Figure 3-8. Quarterly Per Capita U.S. Consumption of Fluid Milk, 1995 to 2016

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Figure 3-9. Quarterly Per Capita U.S. Consumption of Cheese, 1995 to 2016

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

36

40

44

48

52

56

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Pounds Pounds
30

Figure 3-10. Quarterly Per Capita U.S. Consumption of Butter, 1995 to 2016

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

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

Fat Basis, 1995 to 2016

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

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

135

140

145

150

155

160

165

170

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Pounds Pounds
31

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

Basis, 1995 to 2016

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 SkimSolids Basis, 1995 to 2016

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

130

132

134

136

138

140

142

144

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Pounds Millions of Pounds

 ── Milk-equivalent fat basis ── Skim-solids basis
32

Table 3-2. U.S. Dairy Product Imports and Import Assessment Funds, 2012-20161

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Value of All Dairy Imports 

($1,000)

$3,059,069 $3,051,985 $3,452,772 $3,453,239 $3,410,837

Value of Cheese Imports 

($1,000)

$1,093,017 $1,145,000 $1,274,723 $1,290,771 $1,262,980

Quantity of Cheese Imports, 

(metric tons (MT))

153,964 147,196 164,777 197,767 205,333

Unit Value of Cheese Imports 

($/MT)

$7,099 $7,779 $7,736 $6,526.73 $6,150.89

Import Assessment Funds ($) $3,522,145 $3,415,218 $3,411,353 $4,175,783 $4,756,864

Import Assessment per 

$1,000 of dairy imports 

$1.15 $1.12 $0.99 $1.21 $1.39

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

2011 to present.

Sources: Import Assessment data from USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service. Trade data from USDA, Foreign 

Agricultural Service. 

Figure 3-14. U.S. Dairy Imports and Cheese Share of Dairy Import Value, 2012-2016

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

33.5%

34.5%

35.5%

36.5%

37.5%

38.5%

39.5%

 $-

 $500,000

 $1,000,000

 $1,500,000

 $2,000,000

 $2,500,000

 $3,000,000

 $3,500,000

 $4,000,000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

$1,000

 Cheese share of total dairy import value Total dairy import value
33

Findings on Impacts of Promotion Expenditures on Dairy Demand

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 impacts generally are modest during the quarter in which 

expenditures are made but larger cumulatively over time.

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

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

known as the promotion expenditure elasticity, is defined as the percentage change in 

consumption given a 1-percent change in demand-enhancing expenditures, while 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. The analysis allows the 

promotion elasticities to vary over time with variation in expenditures. Some of the 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 2016 were 0.053, 0.019, and 

0.067, respectively. The promotion elasticities for all dairy products on a skim-solids basis 

and on a fat basis for 2016 were 0.060 and 0.030 respectively. 

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 over 8 quarters and 

over 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 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 export 

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

expenditure elasticity was estimated to be statistically significant at 0.072 over the sample period 

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

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

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

dry milk (NDM) price on a skim-solids basis; lags of the measure of real world income; seasonality; and inertia or 

stickiness of dairy exports in world markets.
34

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

significant at 0.107 (Table 3-3).

The analysis in this chapter covers the period of 1995 to 2016. The results are decomposed for 

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

2010, and (4) 2011-2016. 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 2016 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.

Tables 3-4 provides 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 yearby-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.

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 

Table 3-3. Estimated Dairy Demand Sensitivity to Promotion, Prices, and Income, 1995 to 2016

Promotion Elasticities Own-Price Income

1995 to 2016 2016 only Elasticity Elasticity

Butter1 0.038 0.053 -0.087 0.269

Cheese1 0.026 0.019 -0.154 0.450

Fluid milk1 0.085 0.067 -0.112 -0.162

All dairy1

Skim-solids basis 0.065 0.060 -0.064 0.088

Fat basis 0.032 0.030 -0.039 0.264

Exports1

Skim-solids basis 0.072 0.072 -0.194 0.504

Fat basis 0.107 0.107 -0.180 0.912 1

Over the time period 1995.1 to 2016.4.
35

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

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

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

butter was higher by 10.8 percent, 4.6 percent, and 3.3 percent, respectively, over the period of 

1995 to 2016 due to promotion efforts, all other exogenous factors held constant. The average 

annual per capita consumption of nonfat dry milk (NFDM) would have been 3.16 pounds per 

capita annually without promotion versus 3.18 pounds per capita as actually occurred with 

promotion over the 1995 to 2016 period, an increase of 0.8 percent.

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

Response – Per Capita Consumption

Source: Calculation by the authors.

NFDM = Nonfat Dry Milk 

Fluid Milk

Per Capita 

Consumption

Cheese

Per Capita 

Consumption

Butter

Per Capita 

Consumption

NFDM

Per Capita

Consumption

Period

2011 - 2016

With Promotion (lbs) 181.34 34.49 5.54 3.21

No Promotion (lbs) 164.90 32.93 5.29 3.15

Change (lbs) 16.43 1.55 0.25 0.06

Percent Change 10.0% 4.7% 4.6% 1.9%

2005 - 2010

With Promotion (lbs) 196.54 32.47 4.81 3.22

No Promotion (lbs) 177.58 31.01 4.64 3.18

Change (lbs) 18.97 1.46 0.16 0.04

Percent Change 10.7% 4.7% 3.5% 1.3%

2000 - 2004

With Promotion (lbs) 202.78 30.33 4.44 3.04

No Promotion (lbs) 182.21 28.92 4.37 3.03

Change (lbs) 20.49 1.42 0.07 0.01

Percent Change 11.2% 4.9% 1.7% 0.4%

1995 - 1999

With Promotion (lbs) 209.95 27.68 4.32 3.24

No Promotion (lbs) 188.48 26.59 4.22 3.26

Change (lbs) 21.47 1.09 0.11 -0.02

Percent Change 11.4% 4.1% 2.6% -0.6%

1995 - 2016

With Promotion (lbs) 196.84 31.45 4.81 3.18

No Promotion (lbs) 177.65 30.05 4.66 3.16

Change (lbs) 19.19 1.39 0.15 0.03

Percent Change 10.8% 4.6% 3.3% 0.8%
36

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

between 1995 and 2016 was mitigated to some extent by the promotional efforts of the National 

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

177.65 pounds per capita annually instead of 196.84 pounds per capita annually over the 1995-

2016 period as actually occurred with promotion. Hence, the National Programs’ spending on 

fluid milk reduced the rate of decline in consumption. 

The results also indicate the annual per capita consumption of cheese would have averaged 30.05 

pounds without promotion versus the 31.45 pounds as actually occurred with promotion over the 

1995 to 2016 period. For butter over that period, annual per capita consumption would have 

averaged 4.66 pounds without promotion versus the 4.81 pounds that actually occurred without

promotion.

Average annual per capita consumption of fluid milk, cheese, and butter was higher by 10.0 

percent, 4.7 percent, and 4.6 percent, respectively, due to promotion during the 2012 to 2016 

period (Table 3-4). Annual exports of butter averaged 8.5 percent less than would have occurred 

without promotion while annual exports of NFDM and cheese averaged 2.7 percent and 4.7 

percent higher, respectively, due to promotion.

Looking specifically at import assessment impacts, cheese is the focus of the analysis given that 

cheese accounts for about one-third of total imported dairy products3 and for which there are 

adequate data to support a thorough quantitative analysis. The analytical results indicate that the 

average annual level of cheese imports was higher by roughly 1.4 million pounds due to the 

expenditure of promotion funds collected from importers. Further, the annual unit value of 

cheese imports amounted to roughly $3.16 per pound on average over the period 2012 to 2016 

due to promotion using import assessments. Hence, incremental revenue to importers solely from 

cheese attributed to the import assessment totaled $4.4 million.

The average annual per capita consumption of cheese was also higher by 0.024 pounds (0.07 

percent) as a result of the promotion funded by the importer assessment. Average annual 

consumption of other cheese was higher by 7.42 million pounds (0.11 percent) as a result of the 

import assessment.

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. By using profit over costs in the analysis, 

a more complete and realistic BCR is calculated for producers. The fluid milk processor BCR is 

calculated similarlyto the producer BCR; the cost of milk is used as a proxy for the cost of 

 3 Total dairy imports include casein, lactose, milk powder, and other dairy products largely for industrial use that are 

not separately accounted for in the econometric dairy model used for this analysis.
37

production since data for fluid milk processors’ cost of production are not available.

The level of the BCR is often mistakenly taken as an indication of the level of the market impact 

of a promotion program. A BCR from a 1-dollar investment that returns 5 dollars is the same (5 

to 1) as the BCR for a 1 billion-dollar investment that returns 5 billion dollars. Although the 

BCR from these two investments is the same, the levels of their market impacts obviously are 

not the same. The more that is spent, the larger the market impact of the commodity program. 

As spending increases, however, each additional dollar spent has a declining effect, so that the 

total additional revenue achieved increases at a declining rate consistent with the law of 

diminishing returns in economics. Thus, the ratio between the additional revenue generated by 

promotion and the additional funds spent on promotion (the BCR) declines as funding increases. 

Further, a lower BCR during one time period than another or for one commodity than another 

does not mean the program is less effective in one time period than another or for one 

commodity than another. Other metrics, such as impacts on consumption and exports, often are 

much more revealing and useful than the BCR as indications of market impact.

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

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

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

programs have effectively increased the demand of promoted dairy products.

As exhibited in Table 3-5, over the period 1995 to 2016, 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 $4.11 for every dollar invested in demandenhancing activities; for cheese, $4.81 for every dollar invested; and for butter, $22.74 for every 

dollar invested. Dairy export promotion expenditures have increased the foreign demand for 

U.S. dairy products by $8.10 for every dollar invested. For an aggregate of all dairy products, the 

net profit BCR is approximately $4.78 for every dollar spent on dairy demand promotion.

Table 3-5. Calculated Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCRs), in Net Profit at the Producer Level Attributable 

to the National Programs, 1995 to 2016

Source: Calculations by the authors

Producers

Product BCR

All Dairy 4.78

Fluid milk 4.11

Cheese 4.81

Butter 22.74

Exports 8.10
38

Table 3-6. Calculated Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCRs), in Net Profit at the Fluid Milk Processor Level 

Attributable to the National Programs, 1995 to 2016

Source: Calculations by the authors

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

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

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

the period 1995 to 2016, the gains in profit at the fluid milk processor level were larger than the 

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

$3.73 for every dollar invested in demand-enhancing activities for fluid milk processors. (Table 

3-6).

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

MilkPEP, also allow for the calculation of separate BCRs for the two groups. To address the 

effectiveness of the investments made by DMI and MilkPEP separately, we simulated “with 

promotion” and “without” promotion” scenarios for each of the two entities following the same 

methodology as for the aggregate analysis. DMI promotion expenditures have largely focused 

on promotion programs for fluid milk, cheese, butter, non-delineated products, and exports. In 

contrast, MilkPEP promotion expenditures have targeted fluid milk exclusively. The scenario 

simulation results indicate that the BCR associated with DMI spending was 5.27, quite similar to 

the 4.78 return on investment shown in Table 3-5 for all dairy product promotion investments. 

The BCR for MilkPEP was calculated at 3.73, slightly below the 4.11 calculated for all fluid 

milk promotional spending in Table 3-5.

Concluding Remarks4

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

covering the period 1995-2016. The key findings regarding markets for milk and manufactured 

dairy products include the following:

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

especially cheese and butter, while moderating the decline in per capita fluid milk 

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

larger than the costs of the National Programs.

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

 

4 A reference list is available upon request.

Fluid Milk Processors

Product BCR

Fluid Milk 3.73
39

calculated to be 4.78. That is, for every $1 spent on demand-enhancing activities, dairy 

producers received an additional $4.78.

• The producer BCR for fluid milk promotion was calculated to be $4.11 for every dollar 

invested in demand-enhancing activities. For cheese promotion, the BCR was calculated to 

be $4.81 per dollar invested in cheese promotion and $22.74 for every dollar invested in 

butter promotion. The BCR for dairy export promotion was calculated to be $8.10 per dollar

invested.

• Per capita consumption of fluid milk, cheese, and butter rose by annual averages of 10.8 

percent, 4.6 percent, and 3.3 percent, respectively. Exports of butter and nonfat dry milk 

decreased by annual averages of 21.2 percent and 6.3 percent, respectively, but exports of 

cheese rose by an annual average of 5.9 percent.

• The United States imported between $3.0 billion and $3.5 billion in dairy products in each of 

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

dairy imports. Total import assessments collected ranged from $3.41 million to $4.76 million 

annually between 2012 and 2016. The import assessment has amounted to about 1.0 percent 

of the total demand-enhancing expenditures by DMI, MilkPEP, and the QPs.

• The promotion funds collected from importers boosted the annual average level of cheese 

imports by roughly 1.4 million pounds. Annual unit values of cheese imports amounted to 

about $3.16 per pound on average over the period 2011 to 2016. Hence, the incremental 

revenue to importers solely from cheese attributable to the expenditure of the import 

assessments for cheese promotion totaled roughly $4.4 million.

• The BCR for fluid milk processors attributed to the Fluid Milk Promotion Programwas 

calculated to be $3.73.

• With regard to methodology, the structural econometric models used for this analysis are 

statistically valid and largely consistent with prior studies evaluating generic commodity 

promotion. The simulation analysis was accomplished by aligning the annual AMAP Dairy 

Model with the observed data over the 1995 to 2016 period. The baseline period is 1995 to 

2016, and the impact of promotion was obtained by removing demand-enhancing 

expenditures from the system (the counterfactual). 
40

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. Active and ongoing before passage of the Dairy Act, except for programs operated under 

the laws of the United States or any State;

3. Primarily financed by producers, either individually or through cooperative associations 

or dairy importers;

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

(unless approved by the Dairy Board and USDA); and

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

The aggregate revenue from the assessment directed to the Qualified Programs in 2016 was $213 

million (approximately 10 cents of the 15-cent producer assessment and 2.5 cents of the 7.5-cent 

assessment). This chapter provides the aggregate income and expenditure data of the Qualified 

Programs as well as a list of certified programs in 2016.

Some Qualified Programs participate in cooperative efforts conducted and coordinated by other 

Qualified Programs and/or other organizations such as DMI, the Dairy Board, and UDIA. Their 

goal in combining funding and coordinating projects is for more effective and efficient 

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

the unified marketing plan, UDIA coordinates the programs and resources of 19 federation 

members and their affiliated units nationally through DMI. 
41

2016 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 2016

Carryover from Previous Year 1 $78,256

Producer Remittances 213,084

Transfers from Other Qualified Programs 67,579

Transfers to Other Qualified Programs (64,613)

Other Income 7,911

Total Adjusted Annual Income $302,217

Aggregate Expenditures FY 2016

General and Administrative $9,916

 Milk Advertising and Promotion 15,069

 Cheese Advertising and Promotion 32,219

 Butter Advertising and Promotion 7,628

 Frozen Dairy Products Advertising and Promotion 4,220

 Other Advertising and Promotion 2 5,461

Unified Marketing Plan 3 86,374

Dairy Foods and Nutrition Research 9,719

Public and Industry Communications 27,063

Nutrition Education 17,385

Market and Economic Research 2,106

Other 10,674

Total Annual Expenditures $227,834

Total Available for Future Year Programs $72,282

1 Differences can occur because of audit adjustments and varying accounting periods. 2 Other includes “Real Seal,” holiday, multi-product, calcium, foodservice, product donation at State fairs, and other 

promotional activities.

3 Unified Marketing Plan: Reported local spending by United Dairy Industry Association units participating in the 

Dairy Management Inc. Unified Marketing Plan to fund national implementation programs.

Source: Data reported by qualified dairy product promotion, research, and nutrition education programs
42

2016 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

Colorado:

• Western Dairy Association

Connecticut:

• Connecticut Milk Promotion Board 

Florida: 

• Florida Dairy Farmers

Georgia: 

• Georgia Agricultural Commodity 

Commission for Milk

• Southeast United Dairy Industry 

Association 

• American Dairy Association of Georgia

Idaho:

• Idaho Dairy Products Commission 

• Dairy Food Nutrition Council 

Illinois: 

• Illinois Milk Promotion Board

Indiana: 

• American Dairy Association of Indiana

• Indiana Dairy Industry Development 

Board

 

Kansas: 

• Kansas Dairy Commission 

Kentucky:

• American Dairy Association of 

Kentucky

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 

 

Michigan: 

• American Dairy Association of 

Michigan

• Dairy Council of Michigan, Inc. 

• Michigan Dairy Market Program 
43

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

• St. Louis District Dairy Council 

Nebraska:

• Nebraska Dairy Industry Development 

Board 

Nevada:

• Nevada Farm Bureau Dairy Producers 

Committee

New Hampshire:

• Granite State Dairy Promotion 

New Jersey:

• New Jersey Dairy Industry Advisory 

Council 

New York: 

• American Dairy Association & Dairy 

Council 

• 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, 

Inc. 

• Mid-Atlantic Dairy Association 

• Pennsylvania Dairy Promotion Program

Puerto Rico, Commonwealth of: 

• Milk Industry Development Fund of 

Puerto Rico 

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
44

Texas:

• Dairy MAX, Inc.

• Southwest Dairy Museum, Inc. 

Utah:

• Dairy Council of Utah and Nevada

Vermont:

• Vermont Dairy Promotion Council 

Virginia: 

• American Dairy Association of Virginia 

Washington: 

• Washington State Dairy Council

• Washington Dairy Products 

Wisconsin: 

• Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board.

Qualified Importer Programs:

• Cheese Importers Association of America (Importer)

• Global Dairy Platform (Importer)

• Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board (Importer) 
45

2016 Dairy Management Inc. and United States 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 & Insights,

P = Partnerships S = Sustainability U = Unified Marketing Plan

ABB Enterprise Software Inc. [K]

Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics [N]

Aga, Dr. Diana [Co, S]

Agralytica [E]

Agribusiness-Connect Asia [E]

American Academy of Pediatrics [N]

American Butter Institute [U]

American Dairy Association Indiana, Inc. [U]

American Humane Association [B]

American-Mexican Marketing [E]

American Society for Nutrition [N]

American Society of Animal Science [B]

Arab Marketing Finance, Inc.[E]

Armstrong-Johnston Archival Services [B]

ASK-Comm Strategies, LLC [C]

Association of National Advertisers, Inc. [C]

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

Baxter Communications, Inc. [C]

Becky Dorner & Associates, Inc. [N]

Belcher, Lisa [Co, F]

Blazer, Claudia [K]

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

Bokma, Dr. Bob [Co, E]

Bonci, Leslie [N]

Bovina Mountain Consulting [E, K]

Brand Crushin’ [U]

Burris, Cameron [E, K]

C+R Research Services [F, K]

Canadean – Kable Business Intelligence [E, I]

Catalyst International LLC [E]

CEB, Inc. [B]

Center for Food Integrity [C]

Center for Food Safety & Regulatory Solutions

[E, I]

Center for High Performance [B]

Centre National Interprofessional de 

l'Economie Laitere (CNIEL) [E, K]

CFE Solutions, Inc. [Co]

Chicago Council on Global Affairs [K]

Cision US Inc. [C]

CliftonLarson Allen LLP [B]

College & Professional Sports Dieticians [N]

Consumer Dynamics [C]

Convergence LLC d/b/a GoConvergence [C, F]

Cooperrider Associates [N]

Cowboy Media Productions, LLC [C, E]

Crowd Companies, LLC (Catalyst) [C]

Culinary Institute of America [I]

Culinary Sales Support, Inc. [C, E]

D.L. Peterson Associates [K]

Dairy Council of Utah/Nevada [U]

Dairy Farmer of America, Inc. [P]

Dairy Insights, LLC [Co, E]

Dairy Max, Inc. [U]

Datazio LLC [B]

DH Consulting [Co]

Digital SpeakEasy LLC [C, S]

Domino’s Pizza Enterprises – Japan [E]
46

Domino’s Pizza Enterprises – Oceania [E]

Domino’s Pizza LLC [P]

DuPuis Group [C, F]

Earthwide Business Intelligence Limited [E]

EAS Consulting Group [I]

Edelman Public Relations Worldwide [C, E, K, 

60]

Erika Jones & Associates, Inc. [B]

Esser, John [Co, I]

Euromonitor International Ltd. [E]

Fabrizo & Friends [C, E]

Fair Oaks Dairy Adventure [C, U]

fairlife, LLC [P]

Farmer’s Daughter Consulting [N]

Fleishman-Hillard Inc. [C]

Florida Dairy Farmers, Inc. [U]

FoodMinds LLC [E, I]

Foodsense, LLC [C, N]

Foundation for Food Integrity [N]

Foundation for the National Institutes of Health

[N]

General Mills, Inc. dba Medallion Labs [F, N]

Girag & Associates [K]

Global Dairy Platform, Inc. [C]

Global Food & Nutrition, Inc. [E, I]

GlobalData Plc (Canadean Consumer) [E, K]

GNC Consulting, Inc. [B]

Goodson, Amy [N]

Gravity Marketing, LLC [K, S]

Greater Talent Network, Inc. [C]

HealthFocus International [N]

Health & Nutrition Network [B]

Helen Anderson Inc. [B]

HGR Analytics, LLC [K]

Hillstrom Communications, Inc. [C]

Hruska, Cindy [B, E]

IAX Design Research Group LLC [K]

Idiom Brand Identity, Inc. [C, F]

IFCN AG [K]

Information Resources, Inc. [K]

Inmar Analytics, Inc. [K]

Innova Market Insights [K]

International Dairy Foods Association [E, K]

International Language Option [C, E]

Intersport, Inc. [C]

IntNet [E]

J.C. Small Global Limited [Co, E]

J.E. Sullivan Enterprise, LLC [E]

J/D/G Consulting [Co, E]

JE Julie Enyedy Consulting [Co]

K.COE Isom, LLP [K, S]

Keenan, Judy [Co]

Kenney, Audrey [C, E]

KEO Consulting [C]

Kistner Eddy Executive Services, Inc. [B]

Korn Ferry Hay Group, Inc. [B]

Koski, Shannon [C, E]

Kropp, Jeanne [Co]

LexisNexis [K]

Li, Tammy [Co]

Locraft, Lauren [I]

LPK Brands, Inc. [C, F]

Lynn Stachura, LLC [K]

Maine Dairy Promotion Board [U]

Market Makers, Inc. [E]

Marketecture [K]

Marketing Concepts, Inc. [C, I]

Marketing Connections S.A. [E]

Maryland and Virginia Milk Producers [P]

McCarl, Dr. Bruce [Co, S]

McDonald's USA, LLC [P]

McLeod, Watkinson & Miller [B]

MMS Education Inc. [C, N, 60]

Monster Worldwide, Inc. [B]

Morgan Marzec [Co]

Narasimmon Consulting LLC [Co]

National Academy of Sciences [I]

National Dairy Shrine [B]

National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion 

Board [P]
47

National Football League Players Incorporated 

[60]

National Football League Properties [60]

National Marketing Institute [C]

National Milk Producers Federation [E, K]

National Osteoporosis Foundation [N]

NDP Group, Inc. [K]

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

New Media Strategist [C]

North American Artery c/o Hansen Global 

Event Management LLC [N]

Novak Birch [C, E]

NTT Data, Inc. [B, C]

Nutrition Insights LLC [N]

Nutritional Strategies Inc. [N]

Nygaard Consulting LLC [E, K]

OCLC – CONTENTdm [B]

Opinions LTD [F, K]

Orrani Consulting [E, K]

P R Consultants Limited [E]

Parody, Kristen [Co, E]

Pasiakos, Dr. Stefan [N]

Pelzer Communications Resources Inc. [C]

Peryam & Kroll Research Corporation [F, K]

Pizza Hut LLC [P]

Pizza Hut Restaurants Asia Pte. Ltd. [E]

PR Consultants Limited [E]

Prime Consulting Group, Inc.[F, K]

Project Peanut Butter [I]

Quadrant Nutrition LLC [E, N]

Quaife, Tom [Co]

Queue Marketing Communications Group [F, 

K]

Radloff, Katherine [C, E]

Raymond, Carl [C]

RB International [Co]

Ready Ink Communications [C, E]

Rempfer Consulting, Inc. [I]

Research Resources [I]

Results Direct [C, E]

Richard Fritz & Associates [E]

River Global LLC [E]

Robles, Sylvia [F, K]

Rogers, Paul [Co, E]

RTC, Inc. [C, F]

Ruby Do, Inc. [C]

Sage Publications Inc. [C, E]

SC Motion and Stills [C]

Schonrock Consulting [Co, E]

School Nutrition Association [N]

Schulze, Brian [60]

SEOmoz, Inc. [B]

Shamrock Foods Company [P]

Sheppard, Liz [B]

Sheryl Stern Sachman & Associates, LLC [N]

SIAM Professionals, LLC [Co, E]

Sikand, Dr. Vandna [Co, E]

SK Gerdes Consulting, LLC [E]

Skylar Diggins [U]

Social Enterprises, Inc. [C]

Solution Partners Consulting, Inc. [F, K]

Sorenson, Carla [C, E]

Southeast Milk, Inc. [P]

Southeast United Dairy Industry Association

[U]

Spire Research and Consulting [Co, E]

Spredfast [K]

SRW Marketing, Inc. [I, N]

State Agriculture and Rural Leaders [C]

Stiefer, David L. [Co, E]

Story Consulting [Co, E]

Sustainability Agriculture Summit [S]

Sustainable America [C]

Taco Bell Corporation [P]

Team Services LLC [60]

Technomic, Inc. [K]

Texas A&M AgriLife Research [K]

The Centre for Food & Health Studies Ltd [N]

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

The Fresh Approach, Inc. [C]
48

The Ginger Network, LLC [C]

The Hartman Group [I, N]

The Keystone Center [S]

The Kroger Company [P]

The McCully Group [E, I]

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

Worldpanel [K]

Tong, Dr. Phil [E, K]

TradeMoves, LLC [E, K]

Trusted Translations, Inc. [C]

Tsen, Shan [C]

Tseng, Annie [C, E]

Turim Innovation & Ideation, Inc. [K]

United Dairy Industry Association, Inc. [P, U]

Upfield Group [C]

Venga Global, Inc. [C, E]

Vennli, Inc. [K]

Watson Green, LLC [B, N, U]

Weber Shandwick China - Beijing Branch [C, 

E]

Weber Shandwick Worldwide [C]

Wellspring Insights & Innovation, Inc. [F, K]

Wescott Strategic Communications LLC [C]

World Wildlife Fund, Inc. [C]

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

60]

Zenith International Ltd. [E, I]

Zhou, Wenjia (Ellen) [C, E]

Zosspack Consulting [C, F]

Zuber, Tristan [Co, K]

Zuroweste, Rick [F]
49

2016 National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board 

Contracts Approved by USDA

Contractor Name [Contract Activities]:

A = Advertising and Marketing B = Business Development K = Knowledge and Insights 

M = Medical Advisory

Abrams, Dr. Steven [M]

American Egg Board [P]

Barr, Dr. Susan [M]

Bluetext, LLC [B]

Bridgewater Wealth and Financial Services, 

LLC [B]

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

Dairy Management Inc. [P]

DoExtra CRM Solutions, LLC [B]

EcoNet Ventures, LLC d/b/a Latinium 

Network [K]

Economos, Dr. Christina [M]

FCB Worldwide, Inc. (Foote, Cone &

Belding) [A]

Feeding America [B]

Food for Thought Consulting, Inc. [K]

Gail Golden Consulting, LLC [B]

Hill, Dr. James [M]

InTech Integrated Marketing Services, LLC

[B]

International Dairy Foods Association [B]

Ipsos-Insight, LLC [K]

Johnson, Dr. Rachael [M]

Leidy, Dr. Heather [M]

Liminal Research, LLC [K]

Lowe & Partners Worldwide Inc. dba 

SociedAD [A]

Lowe Campbell Ewald [A]

Lowe Profero, LLC [A]

McLeod, Watkinson & Miller [B]

Prime Consulting Group [A]

Protagonist, LLC [K]

Radius Global Market Research [K]

Red Spark Consulting, LLC [A]

Rubin, Ronald [B]

Saunders, Dr. Michael [M]

Snyder-Cohn, PC [B]

Spectrum Group Productions, Inc. [B]

The Marketing Arm, Inc. [A]

ThinkVine Corporation [K]

United States Olympic Committee [A]

Upshots, Inc. [K]
50

2016 National Dairy Foods Research Centers

California Dairy Research Center

The California Dairy Foods Research Center is located at the Dairy Innovation Institute at 

California Polytechnic State University – San Luis Obispo, supports the dairy industry from farm 

to table. Working with the California Dairy Research Foundation, the California Dairy Foods 

Research Center conducts applied and strategic dairy research and development in the areas of 

product technology and utilization, ingredient technology and utilization, products for health 

enhancement, food quality, and food safety. Facilities at the Dairy Innovation Institute are stateof-the-art, equipped with advanced and routine analytical equipment, dairy foods pilot plants, 

and a commercially licensed dairy processing facility. Adjacent to the Dairy Innovation Institute 

is the Cal-Poly University dairy farm, where fresh milk is available for research and 

development activities. For additional information, please visit: www.dptc.calpoly.edu. 

California Polytechnic State University

-San Luis Obispo

David W. Everett, Ph.D., Director

Dairy Innovation Center

San Luis Obispo, CA

California Dairy Research Foundation

Conca Pasin, Ph.D.

501 G Street, Suite 203

Davis, CA 95616

Midwest Dairy Foods Research Center

The Midwest Dairy Foods Research Center is a collaborative effort between dairy farmers and 

land-grant universities with a mission of providing responsive, agile, and thorough and 

comprehensive product research, and for dairy processing students. The Midwest Dairy Foods 

Research Center is well equipped with dairy processing and research facilities located at the 

University of Minnesota (St. Paul), South Dakota State University (Brookings), and Iowa State 

University (Ames). Research focuses on improving and controlling flavor development and 

functionality in cheese; improving the performance of cheese starter cultures through genetics; 

adding value to milk-based products with probiotics and nutraceuticals; improving shelf life of 

flavored milks; reducing undesirable taste attributes of milk; improving functionality and 

controlling flavor attributes of milk fractionation components; and developing methods for 

effective and profitable uses of whey. For additional information, please visit: 

www.midwestdairy.umm.edu.

South Dakota State University

Lloyd Metzger, Ph.D., Director

Midwest Dairy Foods Research Center

Box: 2104 

Brookings, SD 57007
51

University of Minnesota, St. Paul

Peggy Lehtola

Midwest Dairy Foods Research Center

1334 Eckles Avenue

St. Paul, MN 55108

Iowa State University, Ames

Stephanie Clark, Ph.D.

Midwest Dairy Foods Research Center

2312 Food Sciences Building

Ames, IA 50011

Northeast Dairy Foods Research Center

The Northeast Dairy Foods Research Center, located at Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, was 

formed to conduct fluid milk and dairy ingredient research, provide applications and technical 

support for the improvements in milk powder quality and help establish the next generation of 

dairy ingredients. The Northeast Dairy Foods Research Center provides new learning 

opportunities for industry with short-course training in dairy food safety and Hazard Analysis 

and Critical Control Points and dairy processing, including artisan dairy production, with 

certificate programs in fluid milk processing, cheese making, and yogurt production. Facilities 

available at Cornell University include the Food Processing and Development Laboratory, 

Cornell Dairy Processing Plant, the Food Safety Laboratory, and the Sensory Evaluation Center. 

For additional information, please visit: www.foodscience.cals.cornell.edu/research. 

Cornell University

David M. Barbano, Ph.D., Director

Northeast Dairy Center

118 Stockings Hall

Ithaca, NY 14853

Southeast Dairy Foods Research Center

The Southeast Dairy Foods Research Center has been in operation since 1988. Facilities are 

located at North Carolina State University, which is the lead institution, joined by Mississippi 

State University (Starkville). The Southeast Dairy Foods Research Center conducts research, 

educates scientists, and develops and applies new technologies for processing milk and its 

components into dairy products and ingredients with improved health, safety, quality and 

expanded functionalities. The Southeast Dairy Foods Research Center hosts a Food Rheology 

Laboratory, Nutrition Technical Services Laboratory, and a Sensory Applications Laboratory, 

conducting analytical, qualitative, and affective sensory tests and flavor chemistry analyses 

tailored to meet specific needs of the dairy industry. For more information, please visit: 

https//sdfrc.ncsu.edu/. 
52

North Carolina State University

MaryAnn Drake, Ph.D., Director

Southeast Dairy Foods Research Center

100 Schaub Hall, Box 7624

Raleigh, NC 27695

Mississippi State University

Sam Chang, Ph.D.

Food Science, Nutrition and Health Promotion

240 Wise Center Drive

Starkville, MS 39762

Western Dairy Center

The Western Dairy Center is located at the Utah State University, which is the lead institution. It 

is joined by Oregon State University and others through the Build University-Industry Linkages 

through Learning and Discovery Program (BUILD). The Western Dairy Center research focus 

includes cheese flavor and functionality; cheese technology; fermented products, including 

cheese and yogurt; ultra-high-temperature and extended-shelf-life fluid milk beverages; milk 

protein chemistry, including coagulation, denaturation, and separation; milk fractionation and 

use of membrane separation in dairy foods; anaerobic digestion of dairy processing waste; whey 

protein extrusion; application of genetics, genomics, and metabolomics to lactic acid bacteria; 

whey and milk utilization; and microstructure of dairy. For additional information, please visit: 

www.usu.edu/westcent. 

Utah State University

Donald J. McMahon, Ph.D., Director

Center for Dairy Research

8700 Old Main Hill

750 N 1200 E

Logan, UT 84322

Oregon State University

Lisbeth Goddik, Ph.D.

Food Science & Technology

Wigand Hall

3051 SW Campus Way

Corvallis, OR 97331
53

Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research

Building on Wisconsin’s tradition as the “Dairy State,” the Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research 

was established in 1986 to provide the foremost scientific expertise in dairy research, technical 

support, and education. The Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research is located within a licensed 

operating dairy plant on the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus. The Wisconsin Center 

for Dairy Research offers expertise in five main program areas: cheese, dairy ingredients and 

functionality, cultured products and beverages, quality/safety, and dairy processing. Each of 

these areas in turn are supported by expertise in dairy product research, sensory, analytical, 

training, and outreach. In addition to degree programs, the Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research 

provides specialized training and short courses to over 1,400 industry personnel annually, and 

cosponsors the Wisconsin Master Cheesemaker Program. Its extensive facilities include a 

cheese pilot plant, dairy ingredients pilot plan, sensory lab, and analytical lab, and an 

applications lab. For additional information, please visit: www.cdr.wisc.edu.

University of Wisconsin-Madison

John Lucey, Ph.D., Director

Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research

1605 Linden Drive

Madison, WI 53706
54

2016 Nutrition Competitive Research Activities 

Lacy Alexander, PhD (Pennsylvania State University): Milk and cheese consumption and human 

microvascular function [ongoing 2016].

David Allison, PhD (University of Alabama at Birmingham): Science dialogue mapping of 

knowledge and knowledge gaps related to the effects of dairy intake on human health 

[commenced 2016]. 

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

[ongoing 2016].

Leila Barraj, PhD (Exponent, Inc.): Healthcare Costs and Savings Associated with Increased 

Dairy Consumption [commenced 2016].

Bradley Bolling, PhD (University of Wisconsin-Madison): Reduction of obesity-associated 

intestinal inflammation by low-fat dairy yogurt [ongoing 2016].

Sarah L. Booth, PhD (Tufts University): Menaquinone (Vitamin K2) content of dairy products

[ongoing 2016].

Richard Bruno, PhD, RD (Ohio State University): Regulation of postprandial nitric oxide 

bioavailability and vascular function by Dairy Milk [ongoing 2016].

Wayne Campbell, PhD (Purdue University): Impact of Fluid Milk of Post-Meal Glycemia and 

Insulinemia in Overweight/Obese Adults with Normal or Impaired Glucose Tolerance or Type 2 

Diabetes [concluded 2016]; Dietary protein intake and source and body composition in U.S. 

adults aged 50 years and older [concluded 2016].

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

antioxidant defense in aging: a dietary intervention study [commenced 2016].

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

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

[ongoing 2016].

Michael Fenech, PhD (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation 

(Australia)): Whey protein isolate as a source of Vitamin B12 and to lower homocysteine and 

methylmalonic acid in the elderly [ongoing 2016].

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

in the General U.S. Population [ongoing 2016].

Osama Hamdy, MD, PhD, FACE (Joslin Diabetes Center): Dairy and type 2 diabetes: Research, 

outreach, and education [commenced 2016].
55

Mathew Hayes, PhD (University of Pennsylvania): Milk protein concentrate improves the 

metabolic effects of GLP-1-based pharmacotherapy in diabetic rat models [ongoing 2016].

Kevin Heffernan, PhD (Syracuse University): Efficacy of Whey Protein to Improve 

Cerebrovascular and Cognitive Function in Older Adults [ongoing 2016].

Naiman A. Khan, PhD, RD (University of Illinois at Urbana - Champaign): Diet quality & 

cognitive control function in early childhood: A pilot study [commenced 2016].

Samuel Klein, MD (Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine): Diet and exercise 

intervention in Type 2 Diabetes [ongoing 2016].

Jana Kraft, PhD (University of Vermont): Researching the effects of consuming a diet 

comprising of milk fat on metabolic health markers [ongoing 2016].

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 [ongoing 2016].

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

lower carbohydrate, high fat DASH diet plan on plasma lipids, lipoprotein particle size and 

blood pressure in healthy adults [concluded 2016]; Effects of replacing sugar sweetened 

beverages with milk on metabolic risk factors in overweight and obese adolescents [ongoing 

2016]; Effects of a modified high-fat Mediterranean dietary pattern on lipoprotein and 

inflammatory markers of CVD risk in adults [commenced 2016]. 

Benoit Lamarche, PhD, FAHA (Laval University (Canada)): Investigation of the impact of 

cheese consumption on HDL function [ongoing 2016].

Luc JC van Loon, PhD (Maastricht University (Netherlands)): Casein in milk as a functional 

ingredient for the prevention of sarcopenia [concluded 2016].

Kevin C. Maki, PhD, CLS, FNLA, FTOS, FACN (Midwest Center for Metabolic and 

Cardiovascular Research): A randomized, controlled crossover trial of acute cognitive, appetite, 

glucose and insulin responses to five milk or juice beverages or water in men and women 

[concluded 2016]. 

Benjamin F. Miller, PhD (Colorado State University): Activation of Nrf2 by conjugated linoleic 

acid to decrease oxidative stress and inflammation and thereby increase muscle building effects 

of milk proteins [ongoing 2016].

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

Metabolic Outcomes in Older Men [concluded 2016]; Yogurt, Blood Pressure and 

Cardiovascular Risk in Three Prospective Cohorts [concluded 2016]; Effects of animal and plant 

proteins on functional decline in older adults [ongoing 2016]; Effects of sodium and other dairyrelated minerals on blood pressure and cardiovascular outcomes [ongoing 2016].

Douglas Paddon-Jones, PhD (University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston): Whey Protein, 

Aging and Physical Inactivity [ongoing 2016].
56

Peggy Papathakis, PhD, RD (California Polytechnic State University – San Luis Obispo): 

Randomized controlled trial of the impact of treating moderately malnourished women in 

pregnancy with sub studies [concluded 2016].

Stuart Phillips, PhD (McMaster University (Canada)): Whey protein intake in the amelioration of 

skeletal muscle quantity and function during inactivity in older adults [ongoing 2016].

Shivani Sahni, PhD (Harvard University - Hebrew Rehabilitation Center): Dairy food intake, 

vitamin D status and bone measures [commenced 2016].

Michael J. Saunders, PhD (James Madison University): Tolerance to Intensified Cycle Training 

and Subsequent Adaptations: Influence of Chocolate Milk Dairy Protein Supplementation 

[concluded 2016].

Karen Schmidt, PhD (Kansas State University): Producing dairy protein ingredients for targeted 

markets [commenced 2016].

Carolyn Scrafford, PhD, MPH (Exponent, Inc.): Nutrition Evidence Library Review of Dairy and 

Health Outcomes [commenced 2016].

Tonya Schoenfuss, PhD (University of Minnesota): Evaluation of cheese with desirable fat and 

sodium attributes for school lunch snack choices [concluded 2016]; Improving sensory and 

functional properties of reduced sodium low—moisture part—skim mozzarella cheese via brine 

and make procedure modifications [commenced 2016].

Ego Seemen, MD & Sandra Iuliano-Burns, PhD (University of Melbourne (Australia)): Effect of 

Increased Dairy Consumption on Risk of Fracture and Overall Health in the Elderly [ongoing 

2016].

Mary Beth Spitznagel, PhD & John Gunstad, PhD (Kent State University): Is Milk the Drink that 

Helps You Think? Dairy, Acute Glycemic Control, and Cognitive Function [ongoing 2016].

Hans H. Stein, PhD (University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign): Amino acid digestibility and 

DIAAS values in dairy proteins and other sources of protein used in human consumption 

[concluded 2016].

Hirofumi Tanaka, PhD (University of Texas): Effects of Fluid Milk in Attenuating 

Hyperglycemia and Hypertriglyceridemia for Meal [concluded 2016]; Destiffening and 

hypotensive effects of whole milk and full-fat dairy products [ongoing 2016].

Jeff Volek, PhD, RD (Ohio State University): Controlled clinical study to determine novel health 

benefits of cheese consumption [ongoing 2016].

Elena Volpi, MD, PhD (University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston): Whey protein and 

exercise to accelerate recovery of muscle mass and function after acute hospitalization in 

previously independent older adults [concluded 2016].
57

Taylor Wallace, PhD, CFS, FACN (National Osteoporosis Foundation & George Mason 

University): Dietary protein – fracture outcomes and markers of bone health: A systematic 

review and meta-analysis [ongoing 2016]; Protein intake and bone health – Phase II Systematic 

review and meta-analysis [commenced 2016].

Christine D. Wu, PhD (University of Illinois-Chicago): Consumption of Milk after sugar snacks 

reduces dental plaque acid production and benefits oral health in children [ongoing 2016].
58

2016 Product Competitive Research Projects 

Principal Investigator, Institution, Project Title and Status

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

[commenced 2016].

Jayendra K. Amamcharla, PhD (Kansas State University): Use of Nano-scale aqueous ozone to 

remove biofilms from selected dairy product contact surfaces [ongoing 2016]; Use of Micro and 

Nano bubbles in Spray drying [ongoing 2016]; Altering the microstructure to improve 

functionality of dairy powders using micro- and nano-bubbles [commenced 2016].

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

State University): Understanding the effects of electromagnetic fluid conditioning on physical, 

chemical and functional properties of milk and dairy products [concluded 2016]. 

Jayendra K. Amamcharla, PhD (Kansas State University) & Sanjeev Anand, PhD & Lloyd 

Metzger, PhD (South Dakota State University) & Julie M. Goddard, PhD (University of 

Massachusetts Amherst): Use of novel surface modification techniques to reduce biofilms on 

plate heat exchanger plates [concluded 2016].

Sanjeev Anand, PhD (South Dakota State University): Improve the Microbial Quality of Milk 

Powders by Controlling Thermally Resistant Spore Formers and Spores [concluded 2016]; 

Understanding the process of spore germination or sporulation, and biofilm formation under 

simulated skim milk powder manufacturing conditions [ongoing 2016]; Evaluation of adherence 

ability and biofilm formation of HHRS to modified stainless steel surfaces [ongoing 2016]; Scale 

up of hydrodynamic cavitation as an in-line process combined with milk pasteurization for 

sporeformer control [commenced 2016]; Evaluating enzyme formulations for biofilm removal 

from dairy separation membranes [commenced 2016].

David M. Barbano, PhD (Cornell University) & MaryAnne Drake, PhD (North Carolina State 

University): The role of protein, protein ratio and fat content on consumer acceptance [ongoing 

2016]; The role of milk heat treatment and fat content on consumer acceptability [ongoing 

2016]; The role of vitamin premix on flavor and flavor stability of fluid milk [ongoing 2016]; The 

impact of milk and whey protein based ingredients on sensory and physical properties of 

beverages [commenced 2016].

Maire Begley, PhD (Cork Institute of Technology (Ireland)): Identification of microbiallyderived anti-listerial compounds using high-throughput robotics [commenced 2016].

Andreia Bianchini, PhD (University of Nebraska): Application of interventions at farm level to 

reduce sporeformer bacteria [ongoing 2016].

Dennis D’Amico, PhD (University of Connecticut): Utilization of GRAS compounds as 

antimicrobial dip and coating treatments for controlling Listeria monocytogenes on high 

moisture cheese [concluded 2016].
59

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

Laboratory Program [ongoing 2016]; Consumer Evaluation of milks with different packaging 

and light exposure [ongoing 2016]; Consumer Testing of Pizza [concluded 2016]; Identification 

of the chemical flavor differences between milks ultra-pasteurized by indirect or direct heat

[commenced 2016]; Food Safety Course for Artisan and Farmstead Cheesemakers [ongoing 

2016]. 

MaryAnne Drake, PhD (North Carolina State University) & Lloyd Metzger, PhD (South Dakota 

State University): Exploring consumer perception of permeate-based sodium reduction with 

different permeate sources [concluded 2016].

Susan E. Duncan, PhD (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University): Milk packaging 

options for light protection of milk flavor from processing through retail purchase [ongoing 

2016].

Kathleen Glass, PhD (University of Wisconsin-Madison): Inhibition of Clostridium Botulinum in 

Reduced-Sodium Pasteurized Cheese Products [concluded 2016]; Control of Listeria 

monocytogenes in high-moisture cheese [ongoing 2016].

Lisbeth Goddik, PhD (Oregon State University): Impact of Milk Hauling and Receiving on 

Microbial Content in Raw Milk [ongoing 2016].

Selvarani Govindasamy-Lucey, PhD (University of Wisconsin-Madison): Increasing the shelflife of export cheeses by prolonged low temperature storage [ongoing 2016]; Shelf-life Extension 

of Cream Cheeses for Export [concluded 2016]; Controlling cheese acidity by adjustment of the 

lactose to protein content of cheese milk [ongoing 2016]; Extending the shelf-life performance of 

natural Mozzarella cheese for export markets [commenced 2016].

Frederico M. Harte, PhD (Pennsylvania State University): Effect of salts on casein micelle

[ongoing 2016].

Kevin Keener, PhD (Iowa State University): Controlling Listeria monocytogenes in soft cheeses 

with high voltage atmospheric cold plasma (HVACP) treatment [commenced 2016].

Nancy L. Keim, PhD, RD (USDA-Agricultural Research Service): Evaluation of Health Benefits 

of a High-Quality Diet in Persons at Risk for Development of Metabolic Disease: Rapidity and 

Weight-Independent Effects [ongoing 2016].

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

Applications Laboratory [ongoing 2016]; Next generation value-added milk protein ingredients 

to meet growing international demand for clinical foods [ongoing 2016]; Complimentary 

calcium fractionation techniques to increase co-product solids utilization and value [ongoing 

2016]; Designing novel cheese with high levels of intact casein [ongoing 2016].

Donald McMahon, PhD (Utah State University): Western Dairy Center Technology Innovation 

Laboratory Program [ongoing 2016].
60

Lloyd Metzger, PhD (South Dakota State University): Development of Modified Milk Protein 

Concentrates as an Alternative to Rennet Casein [concluded 2016]; Midwest Dairy Foods 

Applications Laboratories Program [ongoing 2016]; Improve technology to manufacture lactose 

and dry acid whey [ongoing 2016]; Commercial feasibility of soluble soybean polysaccharide 

(SSPS) for enhancing lactose crystallization in lactose manufacturing and as a drying aid in acid 

whey manufacture [ongoing 2016].

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 

[commenced 2016].

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 2016].

Hasmukh Patel, PhD & Lloyd Metzger, PhD (South Dakota State University) & Cordelia 

Selomulya, PhD (Monash University (Australia)): Single droplet drying technology for 

optimization of dairy ingredients for best quality and functionality [ongoing 2016].

Hasmukh Patel, PhD (South Dakota State University): Scale-up and implementation of strategies 

to improve quality and process efficiency during manufacturing of dairy ingredients [ongoing 

2016]; Comparison of functionality and properties of liquid concentrates and dried dairy 

ingredients [ongoing 2016].

Sonia Patel, MSc. (University of Minnesota): Development of a shelf stable dairy based creamer

[commenced 2016].

Phillip S. Tong, PhD (California Polytechnic State University – San Luis Obispo): California 

Dairy Center Application Laboratory Program [ongoing 2016]; Improving SMP/NFDM 

Processing, Microbiological Quality and Functionality through Process and Ingredient 

Technologies That Change Mineral Composition and Activity [concluded 2016].

Michael Tunnick, PhD (USDA-Agricultural Research Service): Long-term Shelf Life Studies of 

Whey Protein Concentrates (WPC 34 and WPC 80) Under Adverse Storage Conditions 

[concluded 2016].

Martin Wiedmann, PhD, DVM (Cornell University): Control of post-pasteurization 

contamination of Pasteurized Fluid Milk through improved sanitation [ongoing 2016]; Impact of 

bedding type in raw milk contamination with spore formers affecting dairy powder quality

[ongoing 2016]; Understanding regulation of Listeria monocytogenes cell envelope composition 

to facilitate development and discovery of improved control strategies [concluded 2016]; 

Evaluation of variation in spore count methods and determination of optimal parameters for 

standardization of milk powder spore testing [commenced 2016].

Bongkosh Vardhanabhuti, PhD (University of Missouri) & Lloyd Metzger, PhD (South Dakota 

State University): Whey Protein ingredient with improved emulsification properties [ongoing 

2016].
61

Qixin Zhong, PhD (University of Tennessee): Delivery system of lactose to improve the quality 

of milk for lactose-intolerant consumers [ongoing 2016]. 
62

2016 Sustainability Competitive Research Activities 

Principal Investigator, Institution, Project Title and Status

Andrew Henderson, PhD (University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston): National 

Nutrient Optimization & Dairy [concluded 2016]; The Environmental Performance of Dairy 

Products in the Sustainable Food Systems [concluded 2016].

Richard A. Erdman, PhD (National Research Council & University of Maryland): Nutrient 

Requirements of Dairy Cattle, 8th Edition [concluded 2016].

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

Impact – Phase II [commenced 2016].

Mary Beth de Ondarza, PhD (Paradox Nutrition, LLC): Advantages and limitations of dairy 

efficiency measures and the effects of nutrition and feeding management interventions II 

[ongoing 2016].

Greg Thoma, PhD (University of Arkansas): Life cycle environmental assessment of yogurt 

production and consumption in the USA [concluded 2016].