CIVIL RIGHTS IMPACT ANALYSIS

OF

FEDERAL MILK MARKETING ORDER REFORM

Executive Summary

Pursuant to Departmental Regulation (DR) 4300-4, this Civil Rights Impact Analysis (CRIA)

reviews the final decision regarding reforms to the Federal Milk Marketing Order program to

identify any provisions within the final decision with actual or potential adverse effects for

minorities, women, and persons with disabilities.

This CRIA includes descriptions of (1) the purpose of performing a CRIA; (2) the civil rights

policy of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA); and (3) basics of the Federal milk

marketing order program to provide background information. The civil rights impact analysis of

Federal order reform follows to meet the requirements prescribed by DR 4300-4. As part of the

analysis, the extensive outreach efforts of USDA through the entire reform process and after the

final decision is published are highlighted. Additionally, statistical detail is provided of the

characteristics of the dairy producer and general populations located within the current and

consolidated marketing areas.

The analysis discloses no potential for affecting dairy farmers in protected groups differently than

the general population of dairy farmers. All producers, regardless of race, national origin, or

disability, who choose to deliver milk to a Federal order regulated handler will receive the

minimum blend price. 

Purpose of a Civil Rights Impact Analysis

The CRIA describes the civil rights implications of proposed policy actions before the actions are

approved and implemented. The CRIA provides information about the most likely beneficiaries of

a decision, program, or activity; how and to what degree the benefits will be demonstrated; and

whether the originally planned policy, action, decision, program, or activity should be modified or

otherwise changed if possible to ensure increased benefits or more effective outcomes. The CRIA

helps to advise USDA policymakers, managers, and administrators about whether the action or

decision will have the effect of unintentionally or otherwise illegally discriminating against USDA

customers based on race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, disability, marital or familial

status. Also, the CRIA serves to advise USDA policymakers, managers, and administrators of the

effectiveness of decisions as related to ensuring efficient, appropriate allocation or distribution of

goods and services in a manner that ensures compliance with all the laws, rules, and regulations

under which USDA must operate.
2

USDA Civil Rights Policy

The Civil Rights Policy for the Department of Agriculture, Departmental Regulation 4300-4 dated

March 16, 1998, states that the following are among the civil rights strategic goals: (1) Managers,

supervisors, and other employees are held accountable for ensuring that USDA customers are

treated fairly and equitably, with dignity and respect; and (2) Equal access is assured and equal

treatment is provided in the delivery of USDA programs and services to all customers. This is a

“one size fits all” policy for all customers regardless of race, color, national origin, gender,

religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status or family status. 

Basics of Federal Milk Marketing Orders 

In order to provide background information on the Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO)

program, this section defines a Federal milk order, states the FMMO program objectives and

means of achieving these objectives, states what the FMMO program does not do, and gives

reasons for its success.

What is a Federal milk marketing order?

A Federal milk marketing order is a legal instrument issued to regulate at a minimum level

pricing transactions between dairy farmers and buyers of Grade A milk in a specified

geographic area. Legal authority for Federal milk orders comes from the Agricultural

Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (1937 Act). 

What is a milk handler?

Milk handlers are the only persons regulated under a Federal milk order. Handlers include

fluid milk processors who distribute milk to consumers and retailers, and also persons who sell

milk to other milk handlers for fluid distribution. The term “handler” applies to proprietary

operations (individuals, partnerships or corporations) and also to cooperative associations that

handle the milk of their members.

What is a producer?

A producer, as defined in most orders, is a dairy farmer who delivers to a fully-regulated

handler milk that is approved for distribution as fluid milk products in the regulated market.

What does the legislation say?

The 1937 Act spells out the provisions that the Secretary of Agriculture may use in achieving

program objectives. To achieve the objectives of the Federal milk marketing order program,

milk orders do the following: (1) classifying milk according to use; (2) establishing minimum

prices that handlers are required to pay producers according to use; (3) distributing or pooling

the proceeds of sales in all uses equitably among producers in the market; (4) verifying the

weight and butterfat tests of milk delivered by individual producers; (5) conducting an

impartial audit to insure payments to producers and to verify reported utilization of milk; (6)

providing procedures, including the use of a hearing, to obtain facts on which the terms of an

order must be based; and (7) making extensive market information available to all parties.
3

What do Federal milk marketing orders do?

Four major objectives of Federal milk orders are to: (1) promote orderly marketing conditions

in fluid milk markets; (2) stabilize milk prices and improve the income situation of producers;

(3) supervise the terms of trade in milk markets in such a manner as to achieve more equality

in the market power of producers as compared to that of handlers; and (4) assure consumers

of adequate supplies of good quality milk at reasonable prices.

What do Federal milk marketing order NOT do?

While Federal milk orders are an important marketing tool, by law they serve only a limited

function in the marketing of fluid milk. They do not control production, nor restrict the

marketing of milk by producers, who are free to deliver milk to any handler who will accept it. 

They do not guarantee producers a market with any handler. They do not regulate from

whom a handler may buy milk, to whom a handler shall sell the milk, how much a handler shall

buy or sell, or at what price a handler may sell the milk. While orders do fix minimum prices

that handlers pay for milk, the price producers receive depends upon how much of the

market’s milk is utilized in fluid products and how much is converted into manufactured

products. The orders do not guarantee a fixed level of price to producers nor do they set a

ceiling on producer prices. They do not set wholesale or retail prices. The orders do not

establish sanitary or quality standards. 

What are the benefits of Federal milk marketing orders?

Federal milk orders provide assurances of equity among producers and equity among handlers

who are supplying or selling milk in a given marketing area via the same minimum price. This

equity leads to a number of benefits for producers, handlers, and consumers. Several factors

have played a role in the success and growth of the Federal order program: (1) it is a

voluntary program in that producers may, at any time, vote to suspend or terminate the order

with which they are associated; (2) terms of an order are developed by producers, processors,

and other interested parties working in partnership with Government; (3) the public hearing

process provides a means for all interested parties to express views as to order provisions and

needed changes in provisions; (4) it benefits producers by assisting in developing steady,

dependable markets and correcting conditions of price instability and unnecessary price

fluctuations. The benefits result in producers being more willing to make the heavy

investments in milk cows and equipment that are needed to produce higher-quality milk; (5) it

benefits handlers by preventing competitors from paying less for their milk than the established

minimum prices, and assuring steady supplies of milk year-round. With this assurance,

handlers can direct their efforts to improving plant and marketing efficiencies in order to

compete for larger and more profitable shares of the market; and (6) consumers are wellserved, with an adequate supply of milk available throughout the year at steady, reasonable

prices to meet their needs.

Civil Rights Impact Analysis of Federal Order Reform

To aid in this CRIA, population data have been collected and analyzed. The data include: (1) the

composition of the total population to be affected by the policy change, identified by race, color,
4

national origin, gender, and disability; and (2) comparisons of these groups within the general

population with their representations in the population that will be the target of the policy change. 

This information is included in Appendix A.

Following are requirements (indicated by underline) to be addressed in this CRIA.

1. The analysis should evaluate and assess whether and the extent to which the various

populations are affected by or associated with any of the following factors, to include an

evaluation of the extent of the impact and the manner in which the impact will be manifested.

1a. Is the policy, action, program or activity newly devised or subject to substantial

modifications or revisions? 

Section 143 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Farm Bill), 

7 USC § 7523 requires that by April 4, 1999, the current Federal milk marketing orders be

consolidated into between 10 to 14. The Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) is also directed to

designate the State of California as a Federal milk order if California dairy producers petition for

and approve such an order. In addition, the Farm Bill provides that the Secretary may address

related issues such as the use of utilization rates and multiple basing points for the pricing of fluid

milk and the use of uniform multiple component pricing when developing one or more basic prices

for manufacturing milk.

This mandate requires substantial modifications to the entire Federal marketing order system. 

Five issues are addressed in the final decision for Federal order reform: (1) consolidation of the

current 31 Federal milk marketing orders into 11 orders; (2) replacement of the current Class I

price structure; (3) replacement of the current basic formula price (BFP) with product price

formulas to set minimum class price levels; (4) changes to classification of milk by end products --

specifically, the establishment of a new manufacturing class (Class IV) which includes milk to

produce nonfat dry milk, butter, and other dry milk powders, and reclassification of eggnog; and

(5) simplification and streamlining the order through expansion of Part 1000 to include sections

that are identical to all of the consolidated orders. 

1b. What are the goals and objectives of the decision or the intended program outcomes and

outputs? 

The objectives of the final decision are: (1) to comply with the requirements of the 1996 Farm

Bill; and (2) to make other changes in order provisions consistent with the goals and requirements

of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601 et seq). The

focus of these changes is to enhance the efficiencies of fluid milk markets while maintaining equity

among processors of fluid milk selling in marketing order areas and among dairy farmers

supplying the areas’ fluid demands. 

Consolidation complies with the Congressional mandate. When new marketing order regions are

defined, realignments of the Class I price structure are necessary to continue to assure an

adequate supply of milk as well as to improve efficiency in the marketing of milk. Replacement of
5

the current basic formula price recognizes that this price is based on a survey of plants and a

volume of milk that may not provide an adequate value of milk used for manufacturing. 

Establishing a new Class IV recognizes that butter, like milk powders, is a residual product. 

Finally, identifying and incorporating provisions identical to all markets in one section adheres

with the efforts of the National Performance Review - Regulatory Reform Initiative to simplify,

modify, and eliminate unnecessary repetition of regulations. Unique regional issues or marketing

conditions have been considered and are included in each market’s order provisions. 

1c. Does data and information indicate that historically, one or more identifiable groups have

not been included among the beneficiary or participant population? 

For this analysis, a protected group (female, minority male, person with disability) is considered to

be “significant” if the group accounts for at least five percent of the population. 

Females represent at least five percent of all dairy operators (as obtained from the 1992 census) in

19 of the 31 current Federal order marketing areas (plus the Tennessee Valley Federal order,

terminated October 1997), 4.9 percent for all markets combined. About 96.8 percent of female

dairy farmers are white non-Hispanic. Minority males represent at least five percent of all dairy

operators in 5 of the 32 marketing areas, 1.3 percent for all markets combined. White Hispanic

and black males each represent about one-third of minority males. 

The current markets with over 5 percent of females or minority males as dairy operators are listed

in the following tables.

CURRENT MARKETING AREAS:

FEMALE, OVER FIVE PERCENT TOTAL DAIRY OPERATORS

Marketing Area %

Female 

Marketing Area %

Female 

Upper Florida 13.8 Southwest Plains 7.1

Southeastern Florida 11.0 Southwestern Idaho - Eastern

Oregon

6.9

Pacific Northwest 10.2 Carolina 6.8

New England 9.9 Western Colorado 6.7

Tampa Bay 9.6 Michigan Upper Peninsula 6.5

Tennessee Valley 9.1 New Mexico - West Texas 6.4

Texas 8.9 Ohio Valley 5.6

Eastern Colorado 8.1 Louisville-Lexington-Evansville 5.5

Southeast 7.8 New York - New Jersey 5.4

Central Arizona 7.1
1

 “Special Breaking New Ground Technical Report; Potential Health and Safety Risks of

Farming/Ranching with a Disability,” Plowshares #27, Breaking New Ground Resource Center,

Department of Agricultural & Biological Engineering, Purdue University, 1997.

6

CURRENT MARKETING AREAS:

MINORITY MALE, OVER FIVE PERCENT TOTAL DAIRY OPERATORS

Marketing Area % Minority

Male 

Marketing Area % Minority

Male 

New Mexico - West Texas 19.6 Carolina 6.2

Southeastern Florida 18.3 Central Arizona 5.0

Tampa Bay 8.8

Persons with disabilities are a protected group to be addressed in the CRIA. However, data

regarding disability status of dairy operators is not available from the 1992 census. A 1982 study

done by the Breaking New Ground (BNG) Resource Center at Purdue University “found that 19

percent of farm operators had a physical disability that prevented them from completing essential

operations on the farm. Presently the BNG Resource Center estimates that there are

approximately 500,000 farmers, ranchers, and agricultural workers who fall into this category

(The National AgrAbility Program 1991-1996).”1 Although this information is not specific to

dairy farmers, or to regions of the country, it is reasonable to estimate that, in general, the 5

percent threshold is exceeded for persons with disabilities.

The existence of the Federal milk order program is not expected to have a direct impact on

individuals’ choices of whether to participate in the dairy industry. With or without Federal

orders, dairying is a capital- and labor-intensive business. As noted previously, one of the reasons

for the Federal order program’s success is that all producers benefit through assistance in

developing steady, dependable markets, reducing price instability and unnecessary price

fluctuations, and assurances of a minimum price for their milk. With this assurance, producers are

more willing to make the significant cost investments in milk cows and equipment needed to

produce high-quality milk. Federal orders provide the same assurance for all producers, without

regard to sex, race, origin, or disability. The value of all milk delivered to handlers competing for

sales within a defined marketing area is divided equally among all producers delivering milk to

those handlers.

1d. Does pre-decision research indicate that one or more identifiable groups will be

disproportionately under- or over-represented in the beneficiary or participant population

with an interest or stake in the program policy or decision? 

For this analysis, a protected group (female, minority male, person with disability) is considered to

be “significant” if the group accounts for at least five percent of the population. 
7

In 6 of the 11 consolidated marketing areas, females represent at least five percent of all dairy

operators, slightly under 5 percent for all markets combined. In 3 of the 11 consolidated

marketing areas, minority males represent at least five percent of all dairy operators, 1.3 percent

of all markets combined.

The consolidated markets with over 5 percent of females or minority males as dairy operators are

listed in the following tables. All producers, regardless of race, national origin, or disability,

choosing to deliver milk to a Federal order regulated handler will receive the minimum blend

price. 

CONSOLIDATED MARKETING AREAS: 

FEMALE, OVER FIVE PERCENT

TOTAL DAIRY OPERATORS

Marketing Area % 

Female 

Florida 12.3

Pacific Northwest 10.2

Southwest 8.6

Southeast 7.3

Appalachian 7.1

Arizona-Las Vegas 6.7

CONSOLIDATED MARKETING AREAS: 

MINORITY MALE, OVER FIVE

PERCENT TOTAL DAIRY OPERATORS

Marketing Area % Minority

Male 

Southwest 7.7

Florida 7.3

Arizona-Las Vegas 7.0

As stated previously, it is reasonable to estimate that, in general, the 5 percent threshold is

exceeded for persons with disabilities.

Milk orders do not regulate where a producer may market milk. Of the total U.S. fluid milk,

Federal orders regulate about 80 percent, the California State order regulates about 15 percent,

and the remaining 5 percent is regulated by other State orders.
8

Even though all of the protected groups combined represent less than 20 percent of the total

population of dairy farmers, all provisions of milk orders apply to all handlers and producers

serving a defined market.

1e. What is the geographic location in which the decision, action, program or activity will have

the greatest or least impact? 

The Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), published separately from the final decision, analyzes the

impact of consolidation and pricing structure on dairy farmers, fluid milk processors and dairy

product manufacturers, consumers, and international trade. The RIA reports changes over the six

years 2000 to 2005 from a market-by-market baseline consistent with USDA’s official national

baseline projections for the dairy sector. The average six-year percent change will be reported for

the purposes of this CRIA. For each market, a pricing point or city is used to represent that

market, with adjustments for location (distance from the pricing point).

“Cash receipts,” an indicator reported in the RIA provides the impact on dairy producers. This

variable is determined by multiplying the milk marketings volume by the all-milk (blend) price. 

Changes in cash receipts indicate changes in the dairy producer’s ability and willingness to

produce milk.

Over the six years, cash receipts are expected to increase 0.02% for all Federal order markets,

ranging from a 4.9% increase for the Iowa (Des Moines) market to a 3.9% decrease for the Texas

(Dallas) market. An increase in cash receipts is expected to occur for 15 markets (mostly in the

midwest and southeast areas), while the remaining 18 markets are expected to have a decrease in

cash receipts (mostly in the southwestern, northeastern, and western areas). 

The current markets in which over five percent of total dairy farms are operated by females and

minority males are shown in the two following tables with the expected six-year average change in

cash receipts. All producers, regardless of race, national origin, or disability choosing to deliver

milk to a Federal order regulated handler will receive the minimum blend price. 

Of the 19 markets with females operating more than 5 percent of the farms, the average cash

receipts for 8 markets are expected to increase from between 0.1 to 3.6%, and average cash

receipts for 11 markets are expected to decrease from between -0.4 to -3.9%. 

Of the five markets with minority males operating more than 5 percent of the farms, the average

cash receipts for 3 markets are expected to increase from between 1.7 to 3.6%, and average cash

receipts for 2 markets are expected to decrease from between -1.2 to -2.4%. 
9

CURRENT MARKETING AREAS:

FEMALE, OVER 5 PERCENT TOTAL DAIRY OPERATORS

AVERAGE CHANGE IN CASH RECEIPTS 2000-2005

Marketing Area %

Female 

% Change

in Cash

Receipts

Marketing Area %

Female

% Change

in Cash

Receipts

Upper Florida 13.8 -0.4 Southwest Plains 7.1 -2.4

Southeastern Florida 11.0 3.0 Southwestern Idaho - Eastern

Oregon

6.9 2.0

Pacific Northwest 10.2 -0.5 Carolina 6.8 -1.2

New England 9.9 0.2 Western Colorado 6.7 -2.0

Tampa Bay 9.6 3.6 Michigan Upper Peninsula 6.5 -2.0

Tennessee Valley 9.1 -1.8 New Mexico - West Texas 6.4 1.7

Texas 8.9 -3.9 Ohio Valley 5.6 0.8

Eastern Colorado 8.1 -3.8 Louisville-LexingtonEvansville5.5 -0.6

Southeast 7.8 0.1 New York - New Jersey 5.4 1.1

Central Arizona 7.1 -2.4

CURRENT MARKETING AREAS:

MINORITY MALE, OVER 5 PERCENT TOTAL DAIRY OPERATORS

AVERAGE CHANGE IN CASH RECEIPTS 2000-2005

Marketing Area

%

Minority

Male 

% Change

in Cash

Receipts

Marketing Area

%

Minority

Male 

% Change

in Cash

Receipts

New Mexico - West Texas 19.6 1.7 Carolina 6.2 -1.2

Southeastern Florida 18.3 3.0 Central Arizona 5.0 -2.4

Tampa Bay 8.8 3.6

1f. The composition of the population within the target geographic location. 

Along with the dairy producer population, the general population in both the current and

consolidated marketing areas is described fully in Appendix A. 
10

1g. The economic impact for the population/geographic location and other related economic

factors associated with the beneficiary or participant population. 

Over the 2000-2005 period, the final decision has very minor impacts on the overall production

and consumption of milk and dairy products in the United States. Consumers of Class I (fluid)

products will see their cost reduced modestly while consumers of soft and hard manufactured

products will see their costs increase modestly. As a result, cash receipts to producers for milk

marketings will be virtually unchanged as will annual milk marketings. Thus, more milk will be

consumed as fluid products because of slightly lower price, but less milk will be consumed as soft

and hard manufactured products because of higher prices.

Regionally, the change in the milk production structure may be slowed as cash receipts are

lowered in areas that have had increases in milk production in recent years. Likewise in areas

where milk production has declined in recent years, cash receipts are expected to show some

increases and thus stimulate, or at least slow the declines in, milk production.

The following two tables summarize the average six-year impacts for the final decision. The first

table lists impacts for the Federal order markets, while the second table lists impacts for the

United States.

SUMMARY

 OF IMPACTS ON FEDERAL ORDER MARKETS,

6-YEAR AVERAGES

Change In: Unit Final Decision

Class I differentials 1/

All-milk price

Class I price

Class II price

Class III price

Class IV price

dol / cwt

dol / cwt

dol / cwt

dol / cwt

dol / cwt

dol / cwt

-0.29

-0.02

-0.19

0.50

0.01

0.00

Milk marketings

Class I use

Manufacturing use

mil lbs

mil lbs

mil lbs

8.0

42.1

-34.1

Cash receipts

Fluid expenditures

Manufacturing expenditures

mil dol

mil dol

mil dol

-2.8

-80.4

77.6

1/ weighted average
11

SUMMARY

 OF IMPACTS ON THE U.S.,

 6-YEAR AVERAGES

Change In: Unit Final Decision

All-milk price dol / cwt 0.00

Milk marketings

Class I use

Manufacturing use

mil lbs

mil lbs

mil lbs

14.8

37.8

-23.0

Cash receipts

Fluid expenditures

Manufacturing expenditures

mil dol

mil dol

mil dol

3.2

-79.3

82.5

1h. The extent to which identifiable group members will directly participate in or influence the

decisions, policies, program and activities or be limited in their opportunity to participate,

coupled with information to indicate the quality or character of the participation. 

and

1i. Efforts to notify and provide outreach to potential beneficiary and participant populations. 

Full participation by interested parties has been essential in the reform of Federal milk orders. The

issues are too important and complex to be developed without significant input from all facets of

the dairy industry. The experience, knowledge, and expertise of the industry and public have been

integral to the development of the final decision. 

“Interested parties” is an inclusive group regulated by or interested in Federal orders. Included as

interested parties are: all regulated handlers of milk; any person or group associated with a

regulated handler requesting separate notification; and any person or group requesting to receive

information. This last group includes dairy producers, consumers, public and private schools,

attorneys, dairy industry consultants, university researchers, State and County extension

personnel, State Departments of Agriculture, Federal agencies (e.g. Food and Nutrition Service,

Food and Drug Administration), commodity exchanges, news agencies, trade associations, and

other agricultural industries. If dairy producers are members of a dairy cooperative association,

the cooperative is responsible to inform them of Federal order program announcements. If dairy

producers are not cooperative members, each of the Market Administrators publishes a monthly

marketing service bulletin with information relevant to that particular marketing order and area.

To ensure that maximum public input into the process was received, USDA developed a plan of

action and projected time line. The plan of action developed consists of three phases: 

developmental, rulemaking, and implementation. 
2

 Copies of this announcement and all subsequent announcements and reports were, and

still are, available from Dairy Programs at (202) 720-4392, any Market Administrator office, or

via the Internet at http://www.ams.usda.gov/dairy/.

12

The first phase of the plan was the developmental phase which allowed USDA to interact freely

with the public to develop viable proposals that accomplished the Farm Bill mandates, as well as

related reforms. The USDA met with interested parties to discuss the reform progress, assisted in

developing ideas or provided data and analysis on various possibilities, issued program

announcements, and requested public input on all aspects of the Federal order program. This 

phase began on April 4, 1996, and concluded with the issuance of the proposed rule on 

January 21, 1998 (68 FR 4802). 

The second phase of the plan, the rulemaking phase, began with the issuance and publication of

the proposed rule. This proposed rule provided the public 60 days to submit written comments on

the reform proposals to USDA. On March 10, 1998, (68 FR 12417) the comment period was

extended for an additional 30 days until April 30, 1998. In addition to written requests for

comments, four listening sessions were held to receive verbal comments on the proposed rule. All

comments were reviewed and considered prior to the issuance of this final decision. 

The third and final phase of the plan, the implementation phase, begins after the final decision is

published in the Federal Register. This phase consists of informational meetings conducted by

Market Administrator personnel and referenda. The objective of the informational meetings is to

inform producers and handlers about the newly consolidated orders and explain the projected

effects on producers and handlers in the new marketing order areas. Outreach efforts by USDA

are described further in a following section. After informational meetings are held, the referenda

will be conducted. Upon approval of the consolidated orders and related reforms by the required

number of producers in each marketing area, a final order implementing the new orders will be

issued and published in the Federal Register. 

Actions Completed During Developmental Phase. 

C USDA maintained continual contact with the industry regarding the reform process. To

begin, on May 2, 1996, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) Dairy Division issued a

memorandum to interested parties announcing the planned procedures for implementing the

Farm Bill2. In this memorandum, all interested parties were requested to submit ideas on

reforming Federal milk orders, specifically as to the consolidation and pricing structure of

orders. Input was requested by July 1, 1996. 

C On June 24, 1996, USDA issued a press release announcing that a public forum would be held

in Madison, Wisconsin, on July 29, 1996. The forum would address price discovery

techniques for the value of milk used in manufactured dairy products. Thirty-one members of

the U.S. Congress, university professors, representatives of processor and producer

organizations, and dairy farmers made presentations at the forum. 
13

C On October 24, 1996, AMS Dairy Division issued a memorandum to interested parties

requesting input regarding all aspects of Federal milk order reform and specifically as to its

impact on small businesses. USDA anticipated that the consolidation of Federal orders would

have an economic impact on handlers and producers affected by the program, and USDA

wanted to ensure that, while accomplishing their intended purpose, the newly consolidated

Federal orders would not unduly inhibit the ability of small businesses to compete. 

C On December 3, 1996, AMS Dairy Division issued a memorandum to interested parties

announcing the release of the preliminary report on Federal milk order consolidation. The

report recommended the consolidation of the then current 32 Federal milk orders into ten

orders. The memorandum requested input from all interested parties on the recommended

consolidated orders and on any other aspect of the milk marketing order program by 

February 10, 1997.

C On March 7, 1997, AMS Dairy Division issued a memorandum to interested parties

announcing the release of three reports that addressed the Class I price structure, the

classification of milk, and the identical provisions contained in a Federal milk order. The price

structure report consisted of a summary report and a technical report and discussed several

options for modifying the Class I price structure. The classification report recommended the

reclassification of certain dairy products, including the removal of Class III-A pricing for

nonfat dry milk. The identical provisions report recommended simplifying, modifying, and

eliminating unnecessary differences in Federal order provisions. Comments on the contents of

these reports, as well as on any other aspect of the program, was requested from interested

parties by June 1, 1997.

C On April 18, 1997, AMS Dairy Division issued a memorandum to interested parties

announcing the release of the preliminary report on Alternatives to the Basic Formula Price

(BFP). The report contained suggestions, ideas, and initial findings for BFP alternatives. 

Over eight categories of options were identified with four options recommended for further

review and discussion. The memorandum requested input from all interested parties on a BFP

alternative and on any other aspect of the milk marketing order program by June 1, 1997.

C On May 20, 1997, AMS Dairy Division issued a memorandum to interested parties

announcing the release of a revised preliminary report on Federal milk order consolidation. 

The revisions were based on the input received from interested parties in response to the initial

preliminary report on order consolidation. Instead of recommending 10 consolidated orders

as in the first report, the revised report recommended 11 consolidated orders and suggested

the inclusion of some currently unregulated territory. The memorandum requested comments

from all interested parties on the recommended consolidated orders and on any other aspect of

the milk marketing order program by June 15, 1997.

C To elicit further input on the role of the National Cheese Exchange price in calculating the

basic formula price, on January 29, 1997, the Secretary issued a press release announcing

steps being taken by USDA to address concerns raised by dairy producers about how milk

prices are calculated. In the press release, the Secretary requested further comments from
14

interested parties about the use of the National Cheese Exchange in the determination of the

basic formula price, which is the minimum price that handlers must pay dairy farmers for milk

used to manufacture Class III products (butter and cheese) and the price used to establish the

Class I and Class II prices. These comments were requested by March 31, 1997, and were

useful in analyzing alternatives to the basic formula price in context of the order reform

process.

Actions Completed During Rulemaking Phase. 

C On January 21, 1998, USDA issued a proposed rule (68 FR 4802) that consolidated the

current 31 orders into 11 orders, set forth two options for consideration as a replacement for

the Class I price structure, and proposed replacing the basic formula price. The proposed rule

also established a new Class IV which included milk used to produce nonfat dry milk, butter,

and other dry milk powders, reclassified eggnog and cream cheese, addressed other minor

classification issues, and expanded part 1000 to include sections that are identical to all of the

consolidated orders. Comments were requested on the proposed rule on or before March 31,

1998. An informational packet describing the contents of the proposed rule was sent to

interested parties.

C USDA financed the production of a video developed by University and Extension personnel. 

This video was used by Extension personnel throughout the country to explain the proposed

rule and educate dairy producers and other interested parties.

C On March 10, 1998, USDA issued a document that extended the time for filing comments on

the proposed rule an additional 30 days, until April 30, 1998. The document also announced

that USDA would conduct four listening sessions to assist interested parties in submitting

comments to USDA. The listening sessions were held on March 30 in Atlanta, Georgia;

Liverpool, New York; and Dallas, Texas; and on March 31 in Green Bay, Wisconsin.

C On April 15, 1998, AMS Dairy Programs announced the issuance of a report entitled “Report

on the Impacts of the Federal Order Reform Proposals on Food and Nutrition Service

Programs, Participants, and Administering Institutions” by the Food and Nutrition Service of

USDA. The report analyzed the potential impacts of the milk order reform pricing proposals

contained in the proposed rule on the Food Stamp Program, the Women, Infants, and

Children Program, and the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs. Comments on

the report were requested by April 30, 1998.

Public Interaction. 

C As a result of the developmental phase announcements and forum, more than 1,600 individual

comments were received by USDA. In addition to the individual comments, more than 3,000

form letters were received. As a result of the rulemaking phase proposed rule and listening

sessions, nearly 4,500 comments were received. All comments were reviewed by USDA

personnel and are available for public inspection at USDA. To assist the public in accessing

the comments, USDA contracted to have the comments scanned and published on compact

discs. The use of this technology allowed interested parties throughout the United States

access to the information received by USDA. 
15

C USDA also made all publications and requests for information available on the Internet. A

separate page under the Dairy Programs section of the AMS Homepage was established to

provide information about the reform process. To assist in transmitting correspondence to

USDA, a special electronic mail account--Milk_Order_Reform@usda.gov--was opened to

receive input on Federal milk order reforms. 

C USDA personnel met numerous times with interested parties from May 1996 through the

issuance of the proposed rule to gather information and ideas on the consolidation and reform

of Federal milk orders. During this time period, USDA personnel addressed over 250 groups

comprised of more than 22,000 individuals on various issues related to Federal order reform. 

C USDA personnel also conducted in-person briefings for both the Senate and House

Agricultural Committees on the progress of Federal milk order reforms. Since May 1996,

nine briefings were conducted for the committees. The briefings advised the committees of

the plan of action for implementing the Farm Bill mandates; explained the preliminary report

on the consolidation of Federal milk orders; explained the contents of the reports addressing

Class I price structure, classification of milk, identical provisions and basic formula price;

discussed the required congressional report on the progress of the Federal order reform

process; and explained the proposed rule contents. 

C All announcements and an information packet summarizing the proposed rule were mailed to

over 20,000 interested parties, State Governors, State Department of Agriculture Secretaries

or Commissioners, and the national and ten regional Small Business Administration offices. In

addition, most dairy producers under the orders were notified through regular marketing

service bulletins published by Market Administrators on a monthly basis. Press releases were

issued by USDA for the May 2, 1996, December 3, 1996, January 29, 1997, March 7, 1997,

and May 20, 1997, announcements, for the July 31, 1996, public forum, the January 21, 1998,

proposed rule, the March 30 and 31, 1998, listening sessions, and the extension of time for

submitting comments. These press releases were distributed to approximately 33 wire

services and trade publications and to each State Department of Agriculture Communications

Officer. 

Outreach.

We believe that dairy producers who are part of a protected group have been informed about the

reform of Federal milk orders through the extensive outreach process that is routinely utilized. 

However, because dairy producers will be participating in the referendum process to determine

approval of the newly consolidated Federal orders, special efforts are being made to notify and

educate members of protected groups about the contents of the final decision. A national

outreach plan and 13 regional outreach plans have been developed to ensure that individuals

within the various protected groups have access to this information.

Educational materials, in the form of fact sheets, have been developed to explain the contents of

the final decision. These fact sheets explain the primary final decision items such as the

consolidation of marketing orders, the basic formula price replacement, the classification
16

provisions, and the Class I pricing system. The fact sheets also provide a basic explanation of a

Federal milk marketing order. To ensure availability to all protected groups, the fact sheets will

be available in both English and Spanish. 

The fact sheets will also include the following Equal Employment Opportunity statement: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or

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

The final decision outreach efforts that will be completed by Dairy Programs consist of six

components. These components include: (1) outreach to academia including 1890 Land-Grant

Universities, Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU) and Tribal Colleges and

Universities; (2) outreach through national organizations; (3) outreach through various media; (4)

outreach through regional market administrator offices; (5) outreach that will be completed by

other agencies within USDA; and (6) other outreach efforts. The objective of these outreach

efforts is to provide educational information to dairy producers to ensure effective participation in

the referendum process. Each component is described in detail below.

1. Outreach to academia. A press release announcing the issuance of the final decision will be

electronically sent to universities and colleges specifically identified with a protected group. The

press release will contain a contact person for obtaining further information. Listservs (electronic

mailing lists) have been obtained or are being created to reach eighteen 1890 Universities, 192

HACU’s, and 32 Tribal Colleges and Universities. A listing of these institutions is attached in

Appendix B. In addition, more than 130 of these universities will be contacted directly by a

Market Administrator office as discussed later. 

2. Outreach through national organizations. Dairy Programs has contacted several national

agricultural organizations and will be submitting information for publication in their national

newsletters. These organizations include:

AgrAbility- Breaking New Ground Newsletter sent to between 22,000-30,000 farmers with

disabilities

National Black Farmers Association, Inc.

MANNRS: Minorities in Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Related Sciences

WIFE: Women Involved in Farm Economics

Agri-Women
17

Several of these organizations will also be contacted on a local, state or regional level by a Market

Administrator office as discussed later.

3. Outreach through various media. In addition to the media contacted through other USDA

agencies or departments, Dairy Programs will be submitting the Spanish-translated press release

and informational materials to Spanish printed dairy publications. Currently, two publications, the

Spanish edition of Hoard’s Dairymen and Lechero Latino, have been identified to receive this

information.

4. Outreach through regional market administrator offices. Each regional Market Administrator

office has developed an outreach plan. Through these individual plans, approximately 15 

1890 Universities, 85 HACU’s, and 30 Tribal Universities will be contacted by Market

Administrator offices who will offer to provide additional written materials and attend meetings to

discuss the final decision contents. Five regional MANNRS contacts will also be reached by

Market Administrator offices. In addition, more than 30 women’s organizations and about 20

State AgrAbility chapters will be contacted. Twenty local minority targeted newspapers have

been identified by Market Administrator offices and will be sent the Spanish-translated press

release for publication. Market Administrator offices will also be mailing information to all

interested parties and dairy producers within their marketing areas. A copy of each plan is

included in Appendix C. 

5. Outreach completed by other USDA agencies. Informational packets will be distributed

electronically to the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and to the Cooperative State Research,

Education, and Extension Service (CSREES). The informational packets will be distributed to

2,500 FSA outlets and sent to 2,000 CSREES individuals who will further disseminate the

information across the entire extension and land-grant university system. The local FSA and

CSREES contacts will also be utilized by the regional Market Administrator offices to assist in

organizing and planning meetings with an emphasis on inviting protected groups to attend. The

Office of Communications (OC) outreach program will be utilized to send the press release to

their minority media lists. The OC Constituent Newsletter will also be utilized to send

information to more than 900 rural newspapers. The Foreign Agriculture Service’s Agricultural

Minister Counselor for Mexico will also be provided information. 

6. Other outreach methods. All information regarding the final decision will be available via the

Dairy Programs Internet site. This will include English and Spanish versions of the press release

and informational material. Four of the principal Mexican dairy cooperatives will be sent the

Spanish-translated informational materials. Two organizations, MANNRS and Agri-Women will

be hosting national meetings after publication of the final decision. These organizations are being

contacted to provide speakers for meetings or materials for dissemination to meeting participants. 

These specialized outreach efforts combined with the general outreach efforts normally utilized by

Dairy Programs should ensure that dairy producers are informed about the contents of the final

decision. This information will educate all dairy producers about the final decision contents on

Federal milk order reform and allow them to effectively participate in the referendum process. 
18

2. Where the analysis discloses the potential for an effect that is significantly different for a given

identifiable population, the analysis should proceed to determine whether the effect will be

adverse. If adverse, the next step in the analytical process is to determine whether the impact

will be substantial. If substantial, the analysis should proceed to identify feasible alternatives

that could eliminate or reduce the negative effects or unfavorable impacts. The analysis

should include a discussion of the potential benefits or losses of both the original approach

and the alternatives.

The analysis discloses no potential for affecting dairy farmers in protected groups differently than

the general population of dairy farmers. All producers, regardless of race, national origin, or

disability choosing to deliver milk to a Federal order regulated handler will receive the minimum

blend price. 

3. The CRIA is appropriate and complete only to the extent that it reasonably identifies all the

various adverse implications for each identifiable population, and reasonably and rationally

disposes of each. To the extent that the analysis concludes that the agency’s decision poses an

adverse impact for one or more protected populations, the analysis must document that either:

1. the impact will have only minimal implications for the particular identifiable group(s),

or

2. although a substantial adverse impact will result for one or more identifiable

populations, the agency has no alternative but to go forward with its policy, action,

program or activity in accordance with its originally planned approach.

The objective of the Federal milk order program is to assure that all dairy farmers delivering milk

to a defined market receive the same price for milk regardless of use. This analysis concludes that

the Department’s decision poses no adverse impact for any farmers in the protected population in

relation to the population not protected under civil rights laws.
1

 The Census Bureau treats race and ethnicity as separate and independent categories. Thus

everyone is classified as both a member of one of the five race groups (White, Black, American

Indian, Asian, Other) and also either as Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino (Hispanic) or non-Hispanic.

1

APPENDIX A

Characteristics of the Dairy Producer and General Populations, 

By Current and Consolidated Federal Order Marketing Areas

As part of the Civil Rights Impact Analysis (CRIA) of Federal Milk Marketing Order Reform’s

final decision, data on the characteristics of the dairy producer and general population were

gathered. The following sections describe the data in detail for the current and consolidated

Federal order marketing areas. Appendix Maps 1 and 2 (current and consolidated Federal order

marketing areas) and all Appendix Tables are included at the end of this appendix. Appendix

Table 1 lists the current and consolidated Federal market orders. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF DAIRY PRODUCERS

County-level data used to describe the characteristics of farm operators was obtained from the

1992 U.S. Census of Agriculture (1992 census), carried out by the U.S. Department of

Commerce’s Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau).

Specifically, the following 1992 census data was gathered for this analysis:1

C Sex of operator: male or female.

C Race of operator (senior partner or person in charge): White; Black or African American;

American Indian; Asian or Pacific Islander; or Other (specified by respondent). 

C Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino origin or background (regardless of race) of operator.

C Number of farms with at least one milk cow kept for production of milk.

C Number of milk cows kept for production of milk, including dry milk cows and milk

heifers that had calved, December 31, 1992, inventory. 

If sex or race were not reported, the 1992 census imputed or assigned sex or race based on

information reported by farms with similar acreage, tenure, and value of sales. That is, the total

number of responses for sex and race always equals the total number of farms. However, the

1992 census does not impute a response for surveys without an answer to the question regarding

Hispanic origin. Along with “no” responses to this question, non-responses have been designated

as non-Hispanic.

Persons with disabilities are a protected group to be addressed in the CRIA. The Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) defines disability as a “physical or mental impairment that

substantially limits one or more of the major life activities.” However, data regarding disability
2

 “Special Breaking New Ground Technical Report; Potential Health and Safety Risks of

Farming/Ranching with a Disability,” Plowshares #27, Breaking New Ground Resource Center,

Department of Agricultural & Biological Engineering, Purdue University, 1997.

2

status of dairy producers is not available from the 1992 census. A 1982 study done by the

Breaking New Ground (BNG) Resource Center at Purdue University “found that 19 percent of

farm operators had a physical disability that prevented them from completing essential operations

on the farm. Presently the BNG Resource Center estimates that there are approximately 500,000

farmers, ranchers, and agricultural workers who fall into this category (The National AgrAbility

Program 1991-1996).”2 Although this information is not specific to dairy producers, or to

regions of the country, it is reasonable to estimate that, in general, a threshold of 5 percent

indicating significant population is exceeded for persons with disabilities.

To describe the characteristics of the dairy farm operators for the current and consolidated

marketing areas, the following designations are used: total male producers and total female

producers. Male producers are separated into five groups, following 1992 census categories:

White, Black, American Indian, Asian, and Other. Each of these five groups are further separated

into two groups for Hispanic origin: Hispanic and non-Hispanic. Thus, 10 groupings are used to

describe male producers. Similar categories are used to separate female producers into 10 groups

(race and Hispanic origin). 

To analyze the data, county data was summarized twice: first, according to the current Federal

order marketing area in which the county is located; and second, according to the consolidated

Federal order marketing area in which the county would be located. For example, the Texas

county of Bernalillo currently is in the New Mexico-West Texas marketing area (Federal order

138). Under this final decision, Bernalillo county would be in the Southwest marketing area. A

listing of counties in each of the 11 consolidated marketing areas can be found in the final

decision.

It is important to emphasize two points about the data used and presented in this CRIA. First, the

data obtained from the 1992 census identifies 135,000 farms “with at least one milk cow” for the

counties in question. However, 1992 Federal milk order statistics indicate that an average of

97,791 producers delivered milk to handlers regulated under the then-39 Federal milk orders. It is

most likely that many of the smallest farms included in the 1992 census data are not associated

with Federal orders; that is, they did not deliver milk to a regulated Federal order handler. In fact,

they may have used all milk for their own needs and not delivered to any handler.

Second, the data obtained from the 1992 census identifies dairy farms located in counties which

are part of either or both current and consolidated Federal milk order marketing areas. Thus, the

data represents the number of dairy farms physically located within the order marketing area. 

However, the fact that a producer is located within the boundaries of the marketing area does not

mean that the producer has to deliver his milk to a handler regulated by that Federal order. 

Producers are not limited to whom they sell; they may sell to an unregulated processor. 
3

Consequently, the number of producers delivering milk to handlers regulated under Federal orders

is not the same as the information from the 1992 census. 

These are two reasons why the 1992 census data does not match published Federal order data. 

However, because the Federal order program does not keep records regarding the sex, race, or

Hispanic origin of producers, the 1992 census provides the best information available from which

to describe dairy producer characteristics and the potential impact of regulatory changes upon

dairy producers.

CURRENT ORDERS - Dairy Producer Population

According to 1992 census information, 126,294 farms located in current Federal order milk

marketing areas reported having at least one milk cow during 1992. This number represent over

81 percent of the total dairy farms within the continental United States. The markets with the

most dairy producers are Upper Midwest (23,298), Chicago Regional (20,605), Southeast

(7,467), Southwest Plains (7,100), and New York-New Jersey (6,390). The markets with the

fewest dairy producers are Southeastern Florida (82), Western Colorado (135), Central Arizona

(238), Tampa Bay (251), and Central Illinois (308). See Appendix Table 2.

Of the farms located in current marketing areas, 6,220 (4.9%) farms were female-operated, while

the remaining 120,074 (95.1%) were male-operated. See Appendix Tables 3 (female) and 4

(male).

FEMALE. The percent of female-operated farms in the current marketing areas range from

2.4% (Eastern South Dakota) to 13.9% (Upper Florida). The Upper Midwest has the most

female dairy producers, although the 728 farms represent only 3.1% of farms in that market.

Following is a characterization by race and origin, of the 6,220 female producers. See Appendix

Table 3. 

C WHITE. The 6,068 white female dairy producers account for 97.6% of all female dairy

producers. Three markets each have over 500 white female dairy producers: Southeast,

Chicago Regional, and Upper Midwest. White females account for 2.4% (Eastern South

Dakota) to 12.6% (Upper Florida) of the total dairy farms in the current orders. Only 49 of

the 6,068 white females -- less than one percent of white females -- are Hispanic. Almost onequarter of the white Hispanic females are located in the Texas marketing area, with the

balance located in 13 other marketing areas. White non-Hispanic females are located in every

current marketing area, ranging from 9 in both Southeastern Florida and Western Colorado to

720 in the Upper Midwest. 

C BLACK. There are 98 black female dairy producers located in the current marketing areas,

1.6% of all female dairy producers. Of this total, 4.1% or 4, of black females are Hispanic. 

These four are located in four markets throughout the country. Half of the black nonHispanic females are located in the Southeast marketing area, with 7, 11, and 18 located in the
4

Southwest Plains, Carolina, and Texas markets, respectively. The remaining 11 black females

are located in 6 marketing areas. No black females operate dairy farms in 21 markets. With

the exception of Upper Florida at 1.0%, black females account for less than 1% of the total

dairy farms in each of the current orders. 

C AMERICAN INDIAN. There are 32 American Indian female dairy producers located in the

current marketing areas, 0.5% of all female dairy producers. Of this total, one located in the

Texas market is Hispanic. Over one-third of the non-Hispanic American Indian females are

located in the Southwest Plains marketing area, with the remaining 20 located in 10 other

marketing areas. There are 21 markets in which there are no American Indian female dairy

producers. American Indian females account for less than 1% of the total dairy farms in each

of the current orders.

C ASIAN. There are five Asian female dairy producers located in the current marketing areas,

less than 1% of all female dairy producers, with none Hispanic. These five are located in five

markets throughout the country. Asian females account for less than 1% of the total dairy

farms in each of the current orders.

C OTHER. Seventeen 1992 census respondents categorized themselves as “Other,” less than

1% of all female dairy producers. Of the 17, 15 or 88.2% indicated they are Hispanic. Most

“Other” Hispanic females are located in the Texas and New Mexico-West Texas markets (7

and 4 dairy producers, respectively). The remaining four are located in three other marketing

areas. The two “Other” non-Hispanic females are located in two marketing areas. “Other”

females account for less than 1% of the total dairy farms in each of the current orders.

MALE. The percent of male-operated farms in the current marketing areas range from 86.2%

(Upper Florida) to 97.6% (Eastern South Dakota). Male minority-operated dairy farms, which

includes white Hispanic males, account for 1,632 or 1.3% of the total farms in the current order

markets. This ranges from 0.2% (Michigan Upper Peninsula) to 19.6% (New Mexico-West

Texas). Almost two-thirds of the male minority-operated dairy farms are located in five order

markets (the Southeast, Texas, New Mexico-West Texas, Southwest Plains, and Carolina).

Following is a characterization by race and origin, of the 120,074 male producers. See Appendix

Table 4. 

C WHITE NON-HISPANIC. The 118,442 white non-Hispanic males account for 98.6% of all

male dairy producers and 93.8% of the total dairy producers in the current orders. White

non-Hispanic males account for least 80% of the dairy producers in all of the current order

markets, except for Southeastern Florida (70.7%) and New Mexico-West Texas (74.0%). 

The Southeastern Florida marketing area also has the fewest number of white non-Hispanic

male dairy producers (58 of 82 total dairy producers). The Eastern South Dakota marketing

area has the highest percentage of white male dairy producers, 97.1% of total dairy farms.
5

C WHITE HISPANIC. Only 528 of the 126,294 dairy farms located within the current orders --

less than half of a percent -- are operated by white Hispanic males, but this group accounts for

almost one-third of the total 1,632 male minorities in the current markets. Over one-third of

the white Hispanic males are located in the New Mexico-West Texas, Texas, and Southeast

marketing areas. Only the Western Colorado marketing area has no white Hispanic male dairy

producers. The Southeastern Florida marketing area has the highest percentage of white

Hispanic male dairy producers with 11.0%. 

C BLACK. There are 615 black male dairy producers located in the current marketing areas,

0.5% of total male dairy producers and 37.7% of the total male minority dairy producers. Of

this total, 5 are Hispanic; they are located in three markets throughout the country. Over half

of the black non-Hispanic males are located in the Southeast marketing area, with an

additional 29% located in the Carolina and Texas markets. Five order markets have no black

male dairy producers. Carolina has the highest percentage of black male dairy producers with

4.9%. 

C AMERICAN INDIAN. There are 233 American Indian male dairy producers located in the

current marketing areas, 0.2% of all male dairy producers and 14.3% of all male minority

dairy producers. Of this total, four are Hispanic and located in three market areas. Over half

of the American Indian male dairy producers are located in the Southwest Plains market, in

which they account for 1.7% of all dairy producers. An additional 25% are located in the

Texas, Carolina, and Southeast markets. Ten markets do not have any American Indian male

dairy producers. 

C ASIAN. There are 28 Asian male dairy producers located in 13 current marketing areas, less

than 0.1% of all male dairy producers. None of the 28 is of Hispanic origin. With the

exception of the Southeastern Florida market (1.2%), this group accounts for less than 1% of

the total dairy farms in each of the current orders. Asian males make up the smallest

percentage of minority male operated dairy farms with less than two percent. 

C OTHER. There are 228 male dairy producers located in the current orders that categorized

themselves as “Other” in response to the 1992 census, less than 0.5% of total male dairy

producers but 14.0% of total male minority dairy producers. Of the total “Other,” 202 or

88.6% indicated they are Hispanic. Over 70% of the “Other” Hispanic males are located in

the Texas and New Mexico-West Texas markets (65 and 81, respectively). The remaining 56

are located in fifteen other marketing areas. The New Mexico-West Texas market has the

largest percentage of its dairy farms operated by “Other” Hispanic males with 8.9%. The 26

“Other” non-Hispanic males are located in seven marketing areas, with 11 in the New MexicoWest Texas market. “Other” non-Hispanic males account for less than 1% of the total dairy

farms in each of the current orders, except for New Mexico-West Texas (1.2%).
6

CONSOLIDATED ORDERS - Dairy Producer Population

According to 1992 census information, 134,621 farms with at least one milk cow are located

within the consolidated Federal order milk marketing areas, over 87 percent of the total dairy

farms within the continental United States. The increase in farm numbers from current order

areas results from adding counties previously not in an order area. Typically these are “pockets”

of unregulated areas within and between current order areas that do not change the regulatory

status of handlers. Some areas, such as northern Vermont, are added upon requests from the

majority of handlers even though regulation of previously unregulated plants would occur.

The markets that would have the most dairy operations are the Upper Midwest (44,758),

Northeast (18,632), Mideast (18,560), and Central (18,300). The markets that would have the

fewest dairy operations are Arizona-Las Vegas (313), Florida (824), and Western (3,204). See

Appendix Table 5.

Of the farms that would be located within the consolidated marketing areas, 6,668 (5.0%) farms

would be female-operated, while the remaining 127,956 (95.0%) would be male-operated. See

Appendix Tables 6 (female) and 7 (male).

FEMALE. The percent of female-operated farms in the consolidated marketing areas range from

3.3% (Upper Midwest) to 12.3% (Florida). The Upper Midwest has the most female dairy

producers, although the 1,477 farms represent only 3.3% of farms in that area.

Following is a characterization by race and origin, of the 6,668 female producers. See Appendix

Table 6. 

C WHITE. There are 6,512 white female dairy producers located in the consolidated marketing

areas, which accounts for 97.7% of all female dairy producers. Only 49 of the 6,512 white

females are Hispanic. Almost 60% of the total white Hispanic females are located in the

Southwest and Upper Midwest marketing areas, while neither the Appalachian nor the

Arizona-Las Vegas order markets have any white Hispanic female dairy producers. White

non-Hispanic females account for 4.8% of all dairy producers in the consolidated order

markets with a range of 3.3% (Upper Midwest) to 11.4% (Florida).

C BLACK. The 100 black female dairy producers account for 1.5% of all female dairy

producers. Of this total, only 4 are Hispanic. These four are located in three markets

throughout the country. Just under half of the black non-Hispanic females are located in the

Southeast order market with an additional one-third located in the Appalachian and Southwest

order markets. No black female dairy producers are located in 4 consolidated orders (Upper

Midwest, Western, Arizona-Las Vegas, and Pacific Northwest). 

C AMERICAN INDIAN. There are 34 American Indian female dairy producers located in the

consolidated orders, 0.5% of all female dairy producers. One American Indian female of
7

Hispanic origin is located in the Southwest market. Over one third of the non-Hispanic

American Indian females are located in the Central order market, with the remaining 21

located in seven markets. American Indian females account for less than 1% of the total dairy

farms in each of the consolidated orders. 

C ASIAN. There are 5 Asian female-operated dairy farms located in the consolidated order

markets, less than 1% of all female dairy producers. None of the five are Hispanic. 

C OTHER. The seventeen females that categorized themselves as “Other” account for less than

0.5% of all female dairy producers. Of the 17, 15 are Hispanic. Over 70% of the “Other”

Hispanic females are located in the Southwest order market. The two “Other” non-Hispanic

females are located in two markets. “Other” females account for less than 1% of the total

dairy farms in each of the consolidated order markets.

MALE. The percent of male-operated farms in the consolidated marketing areas range from

87.7% (Florida) to 96.7% (Upper Midwest). Male minority-operated dairy farms, which includes

white Hispanic males, account for 1,739 or 1.3% of the total farms in the consolidated order

markets, ranging from 0.3% (Upper Midwest) to 7.7% (Southwest). Other markets with male

minorities operating over 5% of the dairy farms are Florida (7.3%) and Arizona-Las Vegas

(8.8%). Over half of the male minority-operated dairy farms are located in two consolidated

markets, the Southeast and Southwest order markets.

Following is a characterization by race and origin, of the 134,621 male producers. See Appendix

Table 7.

C WHITE NON-HISPANIC. The 126,214 white non-Hispanic males account for 98.6% of all

male dairy producers and 93.8% of all dairy producers. White non-Hispanic males account

for at least 85% of the dairy producers in each marketing area except for the Florida and

Southwest markets (80.5% and 83.8%, respectively). The consolidated Upper Midwest order

market has the highest percentage of white male dairy producers, 96.4% of total dairy farms.

C WHITE HISPANIC. Only 577 of the 134,621 dairy farms located within the consolidated

orders -- less than half of a percent -- are operated by white Hispanic males, but this group

accounts for one-third of the total 1,739 male minorities in the consolidated markets. There

are white Hispanic males in all consolidated markets, yet almost 30% are located in the

Southwest marketing area. The Arizona-Las Vegas and Florida consolidated marketing areas

have the highest percentage of white Hispanic male dairy producers with 3.5% and 3.4%,

respectively, while the Upper Midwest has the lowest percentage with 0.2%.

C BLACK. There are 631 black male dairy producers located in the consolidated marketing

areas, 0.5% of total male dairy producers and 36.3% of the total male minority dairy

producers. Of this total, 5 are Hispanic. Over half of the black non-Hispanic males are

located in the Southeast order market. Another third are located in the Appalachian and
3

 As with the 1992 census, race and origin are treated as separate and independent

categories. Unlike the 1992 census, the 1997 estimates do not provide an “Other” category. 

8

Southwest markets. Only one consolidated market, Arizona-Las Vegas, has no dairy farms

operated by a black male. The Southeast market has the highest percentage of black male

dairy producers with 2.6%. 

C AMERICAN INDIAN. There are 247 American Indian male dairy producers located in the

consolidated marketing areas, 0.2% of all male dairy producers, 0.2% of all dairy producers,

and 14.2% of all male minority dairy producers. Of this total, six are Hispanic. Slightly less

than half of the American Indian male dairy producers are located in the consolidated Central

marketing area. Another third are located in the Southwest, Appalachian, and Southeast

marketing areas. American Indian males account for 1.3% of all dairy producers in the

Arizona-Las Vegas marketing area but they account for less than 1% of the total dairy farms

in each of the other consolidated marketing areas.

C ASIAN. There are 29 Asian male dairy producers located in the consolidated marketing

areas, none Hispanic. This group accounts for less than 0.1% of all male dairy producers and

comprise the smallest percentage (less than 2%) of minority male-operated dairy farms. Two

of the 11 consolidated marketing areas, Southwest and Arizona-Las Vegas, have no dairy

farms operated by Asian males. 

C OTHER. There are 258 male dairy producers located in the consolidated order markets that

categorized themselves as “Other” in response to the 1992 census, less than 0.5% of total

male dairy producers and 14.8% of total male minority dairy producers. Of the total “Other,”

230 or 89.1% are Hispanic. Over 70% (169) of the “Other” Hispanic males are located in the

Southwest market. The 28 “Other” non-Hispanic males are located in five marketing areas,

with 18 located in the Southwest order market. The “Other” non-Hispanic males account for

less than 1% of the total dairy farms in each of the consolidated orders.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GENERAL POPULATION

County-level data used to describe the characteristics of the general population was obtained from

the July 1, 1997 County Population Estimates by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin (1997

estimates) carried out by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of the Census (Census

Bureau). 

Specifically, the following July 1, 1997 population estimates were gathered for this analysis:3

C Sex of individual: male or female.

C Race of individual: White; Black; American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut; Asian and Pacific

Islander. 

C Individual of Hispanic origin. 
9

Total U.S. Population by Race and Hispanic Origin, July 1, 1997

(in thousands)

White Black American Indian

& Alaska Native

Asian & Pacific

Islander

non-Hispanic 194,571 32,298 1,976 9,443

Hispanic 26,763 1,649 347 590

As the above table illustrates, the Hispanic population is predominately white. Because the

number of Hispanics in the race category is relatively small (other than white), it is difficult to

estimate populations accurately at smaller levels of geography. Thus, the Census Bureau

publishes Hispanic origin only for the white population. 

Additionally, one of the protected groups that is to be addressed in this analysis is persons with

disabilities. The Census Bureau, based on its Survey of Income and Program Participation

conducted during 1994 and 1995, estimated that about 54 million Americans, or 20% of the total

population, have a disability. About 10% of the total population has a disability that is severe

(i.e., unable to perform one or more activities or roles). 

The general population for both males and females is separated into five groups, following Census

Bureau categories: White Non-Hispanic, White Hispanic, Black, American Indian, and Asian. 

The population for each of the 10 groups is provided in the following description of the current

and consolidated marketing areas. 

CURRENT ORDERS - General Population

The total population of the current Federal order marketing areas is slightly under 212 million,

nearly 80% of the total population of the continental United States. The five order markets with

the highest populations are Southeast (24.6 million), New York-New Jersey (20.9 million), Texas

(17.1 million), Middle Atlantic (15.4 million), and Chicago Regional (12.6 million). The order

markets with the smallest populations are Western Colorado (0.2 million), Michigan Upper

Peninsula (0.3 million), Eastern South Dakota (0.4 million), Southwestern Idaho-Eastern Oregon

(0.7 million), and Central Illinois (0.9 million). See Appendix Tables 8 (female) and 9 (male).

FEMALE. Females comprise 51.3% of the total population in the current order markets with a

range from 49.0% (Michigan Upper Peninsula) to 52.1% (Eastern Ohio-Western Pennsylvania). 

The Southeast (12.7 million) and New York-New Jersey (10.8 million) order markets have the

highest female populations.
10

Following is a characterization by race and origin, of the 108.7 million females in current order

markets. See Appendix Table 8.

C WHITE. The 89.5 million white females account for 82.4% of the total females and 42.2% of

the total population. Of this total, 81.4 million are white non-Hispanic females, which account

for 75.0% of the total females and 38.4% of the total population in the current order markets,

ranging from 24.3% (New Mexico-West Texas) to 49.4% (Eastern South Dakota). The total

population of white Hispanic females in the current order markets is 8.0 million or 7.4% of

total females, and also 3.8% of the total population in the current order markets, ranging from

0.2% (Michigan Upper Peninsula) to 21.5% (New Mexico-West Texas). The Texas and

New York-New Jersey order markets have the largest population of white Hispanic females

with 2.1 and 1.3 million, respectively.

C BLACK. There are over 15.7 million black females residing in the current marketing areas,

accounting for 14.5% of the total females and 7.4% of the total population. This group

ranges from 0.2% (Michigan Upper Peninsula) to 14.9% (Southeast) of the total population in

each order. Over 20% of the 15.7 million black females live in the Southeast order market.

C AMERICAN INDIAN. There are 0.8 million American Indian females residing in the current

marketing areas, accounting for less than 1% of the total females. American Indian females

are 0.4% of the current order market population, ranging from 0.1% (Eastern Ohio-Western

Pennsylvania and Louisville-Lexington-Evansville) to 2.7% (New Mexico-West Texas). The

Southwest Plains market has the largest total population of American Indian females with 0.1

million. 

C ASIAN. The 2.7 million Asian females account for 2.5% of the total female population. The

percentage of Asian females in the total current order market population is 1.3%, ranging

from 0.3% (Tennessee Valley) to 3.1% (New York-New Jersey). The New York-New Jersey

market also has the largest total population of Asian females with 0.6 million.

MALE. Males comprise 48.8% of the total population in the current order markets with a range

from 47.9% (Eastern Ohio-Western Pennsylvania) to 51.0% (Michigan Upper Peninsula). The

Southeast (11.9 million) and New York-New Jersey (10.1 million) marketing areas have the

highest male populations.

There are 25.7 million minority males (all races other than white, plus white Hispanic males) in the

current order markets, 12.1% of the total population. This group ranges from 1.8% (Eastern

South Dakota) to 25.9% (New Mexico-West Texas) of current order market population. The

25.7 million is 24.8% of all males.

Following is a characterization by race and origin, of the 103.3 million males in current order

markets. See Appendix Table 9.
11

C WHITE NON-HISPANIC. There are 77.7 million white non-Hispanic males residing within

the current marketing areas, 75.2% of the total male population. White non-Hispanic males

comprise 36.7% of the total population, ranging from 23.3% (New Mexico-West Texas) to

47.4% (Eastern South Dakota). 

C WHITE HISPANIC. The 8.3 million white Hispanic males represent 8.0% of the total male

population and 32.4% of the male minority population. White Hispanic males comprise 3.9%

of the total population, ranging from 0.3% (Eastern South Dakota and Michigan Upper

Peninsula) to 20.9% (New Mexico-West Texas). At 2.2 million, the Texas order market has

the largest population of white Hispanic males.

C BLACK. Black males account for 13.6% of the total males and 54.8% of the total male

minority population. The 14.1 million black males residing in the current order markets

represent 6.6% of the total population, ranging from 0.3% (Western Colorado) to 13.0%

(Southeast). The Southeast has the largest population of black males, 3.2 million.

C AMERICAN INDIAN. There are 0.8 million American Indian males living in the current

marketing areas, less than 1% of all males and 3.0% of all minority males. The current orders

are composed of 0.4% American Indian males with a range from 0.1% (Eastern Ohio-Western

Pennsylvania and Louisville-Lexington-Evansville) to 2.5% (New Mexico-West Texas). 

Almost 20% of the total American Indian population resides within the Southwest Plains

marketing area.

C ASIAN. Asian males account for 2.5 million of the total population of the current orders,

which is 2.5% of all males and 9.9% of all minority males. The percentage of Asian males in

the total population for the current orders is 1.2%, ranging from 0.3% (Tennessee Valley) to

3.0% (New York-New Jersey). New York-New Jersey also has the largest population of

Asian males with 0.6 million.

CONSOLIDATED ORDERS - General Population

The total population of the consolidated Federal order marketing areas is over 217 million, almost

82% of the total population of the continental United States. The three consolidated orders with

the largest populations are Northeast (49.0 million), Mideast (30.9 million), and Southeast (27.0

million), while the smallest populated orders are Western (3.1 million), Arizona-Las Vegas (5.7

million), and Pacific Northwest (9.0 million). See Appendix Tables 10 (female) and 11 (male).

FEMALE. Females represent 51.2% of the total population in the consolidated order markets

with a range from 50.1% (Western) to 51.6% (Northeast). The Northeast (25.3 million) and

Mideast (15.9 million) order markets have the largest female populations. 
12

Following is a characterization by race and origin, of the 111.3 million females in current order

markets. See Appendix Table 10.

C WHITE. There are 91.9 million white females in the consolidated order markets, representing

82.6% of all females and 42.3% of the total population. The total population includes 83.6

million or 38.5% white non-Hispanic females, ranging from 28.3% (Southwest) to 44.7%

(Western). White Hispanic females constitute 3.9% of the total population for the

consolidated order markets, ranging from 0.6% (Appalachian) to 14.4% (Southwest). The

Southwest order market has the largest total population of white Hispanic females with about

3.1 million.

C BLACK. The 15.8 million black females represent 14.2% of the total females and 7.3% of the

total population for the consolidated order markets, ranging from 0.3% (Western) to 13.8%

(Southeast). The Northeast order market has the largest population of black females with 4.1

million.

C AMERICAN INDIAN. There are 0.9 million American Indian females residing within the

consolidated order markets, less than 1% of all females and the total population. This group

constitutes 0.4% of the consolidated markets total population, ranging from 0.2% (Northeast)

to 2.4% (Arizona-Las Vegas). The Central order market has the greatest number of

American Indian females with less than 0.2 million.

C ASIAN. The 2.7 million Asian females account for 2.4% of the total female population. The

total percentage of Asian females in the consolidated order markets is 1.3%, ranging from

0.5% (Appalachian) to 2.4% (Pacific Northwest). 

MALE. Males comprise 48.8% of the total population in the consolidated order markets with a

range from 48.4% (Northeast) to 49.9% (Western). The Northeast (23.7 million), Mideast (15.0

million), and Southeast (13.1 million) have the largest male populations.

There are 26.2 million minority males in the consolidated order markets, 12.1% of the total

population. This group ranges from 5.7% (Western) to 22.2% (Southwest) of total consolidated

market population. The 26.2 million is 24.7% of all males.

Following is a characterization by race and origin, of the 105.9 million males in current order

markets. See Appendix Table 11.

C WHITE NON-HISPANIC. There are 79.7 million white non-Hispanic males residing in the

consolidated order market areas, 75.3% of the total male population. White non-Hispanic

males account for 36.7% of the total consolidated order market population with a range from

27.3% (Southwest) to 44.2% (Western). The Northeast order market has the largest white

non-Hispanic male population, 17.0 million.
13

C WHITE HISPANIC. The 8.7 million white Hispanic males represent 8.2% of all males and

33.0% of all minority males located in the consolidated order markets. White Hispanic males

represent 4.0% of the total population, ranging from 0.7% (Appalachian) to 14.8%

(Southwest). The Southwest order market also has the largest white Hispanic male

population, over 3.1 million.

C BLACK. There are 14.1 million black males in the consolidated orders, 13.4% of all males

and 54.0% of all minority males. For the consolidated order markets, black males constitute

6.5% of the population, ranging from 0.4% (Western) to 12.1% (Southeast). Slightly less

than half of the black males are in the Northeast and Southeast order markets. 

C AMERICAN INDIAN. There are 0.8 million American Indian males in the consolidated

order markets, less than 1% of the total males and 3.2% of the total minority males. 

American Indian males constitute less than 1% of the total population, ranging from 0.2%

(Northeast) to 2.3% (Arizona-Las Vegas). The Central market has the largest male American

Indian population, almost 0.2 million. 

C ASIAN. There are 2.6 million Asian males in the total population for the consolidated order

markets, 2.4% of all males and 9.8% of all minority males. Asian males would comprise only

1.2% of the total population, ranging from 0.5% (Appalachian) to 2.2% (Pacific Northwest). 

Over 40% of the Asian males reside in the Northeast order market. 


APPENDIX TABLE 1:

Current and Consolidated Marketing Order Areas.

Current marketing areas are listed by consolidated marketing area

Northeast Central

 New England Iowa

 New York-New Jersey Nebraska-Western Iowa

 Middle Atlantic Eastern South Dakota

 Central Illinois

Appalachian Southern Illinois-Eastern Missouri

 Carolina Southwest Plains

 Tennessee Valley Eastern Colorado

 Louisville-Lexington-Evansville Western Colorado

 Greater Kansas City

Southeast

 Southeast Southwest

 Texas

Florida New Mexico-West Texas

 Upper Florida

 Tampa Bay Western

 Southeastern Florida Southwestern Idaho-Eastern Oregon

 Great Basin

Mideast

 Michigan Upper Peninsula Arizona-Las Vegas

 Southern Michigan Central Arizona

 Eastern Ohio-Western Pennsylvania

 Ohio Valley Pacific Northwest

 Indiana Pacific Northwest

Upper Midwest

 Chicago Regional 

 Upper Midwest
APPENDIX TABLE 2:

Total Dairy Farms Located Within the Current Federal Order Marketing Areas. 1/

Current Total Current Total 

Orders Farms Orders Farms

New England 1,615 Iowa 6,146

New York-New Jersey 6,390 Nebraska-Western Iowa 2,106

Middle Atlantic 6,007 Eastern South Dakota 1,908

Carolina 2,092 Central Illinois 308

Tennessee Valley 2,294 Southern Illinois-Eastern Missouri 1,581

Louisville-Lexington-Evansville 3,288 Southwest Plains 7,100

Southeast 7,467 Eastern Colorado 764

Upper Florida 491 Western Colorado 135

Tampa Bay 251 Greater Kansas City 1,400

Southeastern Florida 82 Texas 4,783

Michigan Upper Peninsula 634 New Mexico-Western Texas 908

Southern Michigan 4,341 Southwestern Idaho-Eastern Oregon 1,412

Eastern Ohio-Western Pennsylvania 6,112 Great Basin 1,800

Ohio Valley 4,126 Central Arizona 238

Indiana 3,447 Pacific Northwest 3,165

Chicago Regional 20,605

Upper Midwest 23,298 All Orders 126,294

1/ Number of farms with at least one milk cow kept for production of milk.

SOURCE: 1992 U.S. Census of Agriculture, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce
APPENDIX TABLE 3:

Breakdown of Female Dairy Farmers by Race and Hispanic Origin in the Current Federal Order Marketing Areas. 1/

Current Total % of White % of Total White % of Total Black % of Total

Orders Farmers Total Non-Hispanic Dairy Farmers Hispanic Dairy Farmers Non-Hispanic Dairy Farmers 

Within Orders Dairy Farmers Female Within Order Female Within Order Female Within Order

New England 1,615 1.3% 157 9.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

New York-New Jersey 6,390 5.1% 342 5.4% 1 0.0% 1 0.0%

Middle Atlantic 6,007 4.8% 172 2.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Carolina 2,092 1.7% 127 6.1% 0 0.0% 11 0.5%

Tennessee Valley 2,294 1.8% 209 9.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Louisville-Lexington-Evansville 3,288 2.6% 179 5.4% 0 0.0% 2 0.1%

Southeast 7,467 5.9% 529 7.1% 2 0.0% 47 0.6%

Upper Florida 491 0.4% 62 12.6% 0 0.0% 5 1.0%

Tampa Bay 251 0.2% 23 9.2% 1 0.4% 0 0.0%

Southeastern Florida 82 0.1% 9 11.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Michigan Upper Peninsula 634 0.5% 40 6.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Southern Michigan 4,341 3.4% 176 4.1% 1 0.0% 0 0.0%

Eastern Ohio-Western Pennsylvania 6,112 4.8% 273 4.5% 0 0.0% 1 0.0%

Ohio Valley 4,126 3.3% 228 5.5% 1 0.0% 0 0.0%

Indiana 3,447 2.7% 109 3.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Chicago Regional 20,605 16.3% 700 3.4% 7 0.0% 0 0.0%

Upper Midwest 23,298 18.4% 720 3.1% 6 0.0% 0 0.0%

Iowa 6,146 4.9% 214 3.5% 2 0.0% 1 0.0%

Nebraska-Western Iowa 2,106 1.7% 97 4.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Eastern South Dakota 1,908 1.5% 46 2.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Central Illinois 308 0.2% 14 4.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Southern Illinois-Eastern Missouri 1,581 1.3% 63 4.0% 1 0.1% 0 0.0%

Southwest Plains 7,100 5.6% 480 6.8% 6 0.1% 7 0.1%

Eastern Colorado 764 0.6% 61 8.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Western Colorado 135 0.1% 9 6.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Greater Kansas City 1,400 1.1% 60 4.3% 0 0.0% 1 0.1%

Texas 4,783 3.8% 385 8.0% 11 0.2% 18 0.4%

New Mexico-West Texas 908 0.7% 48 5.3% 5 0.6% 0 0.0%

Southwestern Idaho-Eastern Oregon 1,412 1.1% 94 6.7% 3 0.2% 0 0.0%

Great Basin 1,800 1.4% 62 3.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Central Arizona 238 0.2% 17 7.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Pacific Northwest 3,165 2.5% 314 9.9% 2 0.1% 0 0.0%

Total 126,294 100.0% 6,019 4.77% 49 0.04% 94 0.07%

1/ Number of farms with at least one milk cow kept for production of milk.

SOURCE: 1992 U.S. Census of Agriculture, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce
APPENDIX TABLE 3:

Breakdown of Female Dairy Farmers by Race and Hispanic Origin in the Current Federal Order Marketing Areas.

Current Black % of Total Indian % of Total Indian % of Total Asian % of Total

Orders Hispanic Dairy Farmers Non-Hispanic Dairy Farmers Hispanic Dairy Farmers Non-Hispanic Dairy Farmers 

Female Within Order Female Within Order Female Within Order Female Within Order

New England 0 0.0% 1 0.1% 0 0.0% 1 0.1%

New York-New Jersey 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.0%

Middle Atlantic 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Carolina 0 0.0% 5 0.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Tennessee Valley 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Louisville-Lexington-Evansville 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Southeast 1 0.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Upper Florida 0 0.0% 1 0.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Tampa Bay 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Southeastern Florida 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Michigan Upper Peninsula 1 0.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Southern Michigan 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Eastern Ohio-Western Pennsylvania 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Ohio Valley 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Indiana 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Chicago Regional 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.0%

Upper Midwest 0 0.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.0%

Iowa 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Nebraska-Western Iowa 0 0.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Eastern South Dakota 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Central Illinois 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Southern Illinois-Eastern Missouri 0 0.0% 1 0.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Southwest Plains 0 0.0% 11 0.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Eastern Colorado 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Western Colorado 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Greater Kansas City 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Texas 1 0.0% 4 0.1% 1 0.0% 0 0.0%

New Mexico-West Texas 0 0.0% 1 0.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Southwestern Idaho-Eastern Oregon 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.1%

Great Basin 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Central Arizona 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Pacific Northwest 0 0.0% 3 0.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total 4 0.003% 31 0.02% 1 0.001% 5 0.004%
APPENDIX TABLE 3:

Breakdown of Female Dairy Farmers by Race and Hispanic Origin in the Current Federal Order Marketing Areas.

Current Asian % of Total Other % of Total Other % of Total Total % of Total

Orders Hispanic Dairy Farmers Non-Hispanic Dairy Farmers Hispanic Dairy Farmers Female Dairy Farmers 

Female Within Order Female Within Order Female Within Order Within Order

New England 0 0.0% 1 0.1% 0 0.0% 160 9.9%

New York-New Jersey 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 345 5.4%

Middle Atlantic 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 172 2.9%

Carolina 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 143 6.8%

Tennessee Valley 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 209 9.1%

Louisville-Lexington-Evansville 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 181 5.5%

Southeast 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 581 7.8%

Upper Florida 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 68 13.8%

Tampa Bay 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 24 9.6%

Southeastern Florida 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 9 11.0%

Michigan Upper Peninsula 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 41 6.5%

Southern Michigan 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 177 4.1%

Eastern Ohio-Western Pennsylvania 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 275 4.5%

Ohio Valley 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 229 5.6%

Indiana 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 109 3.2%

Chicago Regional 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 708 3.4%

Upper Midwest 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 728 3.1%

Iowa 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 217 3.5%

Nebraska-Western Iowa 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 98 4.7%

Eastern South Dakota 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 46 2.4%

Central Illinois 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 14 4.5%

Southern Illinois-Eastern Missouri 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 65 4.1%

Southwest Plains 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.0% 505 7.1%

Eastern Colorado 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.1% 62 8.1%

Western Colorado 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 9 6.7%

Greater Kansas City 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 61 4.4%

Texas 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 7 0.1% 427 8.9%

New Mexico-West Texas 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 0.4% 58 6.4%

Southwestern Idaho-Eastern Oregon 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 98 6.9%

Great Basin 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 62 3.4%

Central Arizona 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 17 7.1%

Pacific Northwest 0 0.0% 1 0.0% 2 0.1% 322 10.2%

Total 0 0.00% 2 0.002% 15 0.01% 6220 4.93%
APPENDIX TABLE 4:

Breakdown of Male Dairy Farmers by Race and Hispanic Origin in the Current Orders. 1/

Total % of White % of Total White % of Total Black % of Total

Current Farmers Total Non-Hispanic Dairy Farmers Hispanic Dairy Farmers Non-Hispanic Dairy Farmers 

Orders Within Orders Dairy Farmers Male Within Order Males Within Order Male Within Order

New England 1,615 1.3% 1,444 89.4% 8 0.5% 0 0.0%

New York-New Jersey 6,390 5.1% 6,016 94.2% 18 0.3% 6 0.1%

Middle Atlantic 6,007 4.8% 5,809 96.7% 16 0.3% 7 0.1%

Carolina 2,092 1.7% 1,820 87.0% 6 0.3% 101 4.8%

Tennessee Valley 2,294 1.8% 2,065 90.0% 10 0.4% 3 0.1%

Louisville-Lexington-Evansville 3,288 2.6% 3,075 93.5% 9 0.3% 21 0.6%

Southeast 7,467 5.9% 6,516 87.3% 31 0.4% 316 4.2%

Upper Florida 491 0.4% 400 81.5% 7 1.4% 10 2.0%

Tampa Bay 251 0.2% 205 81.7% 12 4.8% 2 0.8%

Southeastern Florida 82 0.1% 58 70.7% 9 11.0% 4 4.9%

Michigan Upper Peninsula 634 0.5% 592 93.4% 1 0.2% 0 0.0%

Southern Michigan 4,341 3.4% 4,144 95.5% 11 0.3% 5 0.1%

Eastern Ohio-Western Pennsylvania 6,112 4.8% 5,816 95.2% 16 0.3% 3 0.1%

Ohio Valley 4,126 3.3% 3,880 94.0% 11 0.3% 3 0.1%

Indiana 3,447 2.7% 3,328 96.6% 9 0.3% 1 0.0%

Chicago Regional 20,605 16.3% 19,846 96.3% 30 0.2% 9 0.0%

Upper Midwest 23,298 18.5% 22,499 96.6% 54 0.2% 6 0.0%

Iowa 6,146 4.9% 5,908 96.1% 16 0.3% 5 0.1%

Nebraska-Western Iowa 2,106 1.7% 2,000 95.0% 6 0.3% 2 0.1%

Eastern South Dakota 1,908 1.5% 1,852 97.1% 6 0.3% 1 0.1%

Central Illinois 308 0.2% 292 94.8% 1 0.3% 1 0.3%

Southern Illinois-Eastern Missouri 1,581 1.3% 1,509 95.5% 7 0.4% 0 0.0%

Southwest Plains 7,100 5.6% 6,421 90.4% 28 0.4% 20 0.3%

Eastern Colorado 764 0.6% 674 88.2% 15 2.0% 1 0.1%

Western Colorado 135 0.1% 123 91.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Greater Kansas City 1,400 1.1% 1,336 95.4% 1 0.1% 1 0.1%

Texas 4,783 3.8% 4,122 86.2% 68 1.4% 75 1.6%

New Mexico-West Texas 908 0.7% 672 74.0% 75 8.3% 2 0.2%

Southwestern Idaho-Eastern Oregon 1,412 1.1% 1,284 90.9% 15 1.1% 1 0.1%

Great Basin 1,800 1.4% 1,723 95.7% 6 0.3% 1 0.1%

Central Arizona 238 0.2% 209 87.8% 10 4.2% 0 0.0%

Pacific Northwest 3165 2.5% 2804 88.6% 16 0.5% 3 0.1%

Total 126,294 100.00% 118,442 93.78% 528 0.42% 610 0.48%

1/ Number of farms with at least one milk cow kept for production of milk.

SOURCE: 1992 U.S. Census of Agriculture, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce
APPENDIX TABLE 4:

Breakdown of Male Dairy Farmers by Race and Hispanic Origin in the Current Orders.

Black % of Total Indian % of Total Indian % of Total Asian % of Total

Current Hispanic Dairy Farmers Non-Hispanic Dairy Farmers Hispanic Dairy Farmers Non-Hispanic Dairy Farmers 

Orders Male Within Order Male Within Order Male Within Order Male Within Order

New England 0 0.0% 1 0.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

New York-New Jersey 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 0.1%

Middle Atlantic 0 0.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 0.0%

Carolina 2 0.1% 19 0.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Tennessee Valley 0 0.0% 5 0.2% 0 0.0% 2 0.1%

Louisville-Lexington-Evansville 0 0.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Southeast 0 0.0% 18 0.2% 0 0.0% 2 0.0%

Upper Florida 0 0.0% 1 0.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Tampa Bay 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Southeastern Florida 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.2%

Michigan Upper Peninsula 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Southern Michigan 0 0.0% 2 0.1% 0 0.0% 2 0.1%

Eastern Ohio-Western Pennsylvania 0 0.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Ohio Valley 0 0.0% 2 0.1% 0 0.0% 1 0.0%

Indiana 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Chicago Regional 1 0.0% 4 0.0% 1 0.0% 5 0.0%

Upper Midwest 0 0.0% 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 0.0%

Iowa 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Nebraska-Western Iowa 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Eastern South Dakota 0 0.0% 3 0.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Central Illinois 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Southern Illinois-Eastern Missouri 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Southwest Plains 2 0.0% 120 1.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Eastern Colorado 0 0.0% 1 0.1% 0 0.0% 1 0.1%

Western Colorado 0 0.0% 1 0.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Greater Kansas City 0 0.0% 1 0.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Texas 0 0.0% 18 0.4% 2 0.0% 0 0.0%

New Mexico-West Texas 0 0.0% 8 0.9% 1 0.1% 0 0.0%

Southwestern Idaho-Eastern Oregon 0 0.0% 1 0.1% 0 0.0% 3 0.2%

Great Basin 0 0.0% 1 0.1% 0 0.0% 1 0.1%

Central Arizona 0 0.0% 1 0.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Pacific Northwest 0 0.0% 10 0.3% 0 0.0% 1 0.0%

Total 5 0.00% 229 0.18% 4 0.00% 28 0.02%
APPENDIX TABLE 4:

Breakdown of Male Dairy Farmers by Race and Hispanic Origin in the Current Orders.

Asian % of Total Other % of Total Other % of Total Total % of Total

Current Hispanic Dairy Farmers Non-Hispanic Dairy Farmers Hispanic Dairy Farmers Minority Dairy Farmers 

Orders Male Within Order Male Within Order Male Within Order Male Within Order

New England 0 0.0% 1 0.1% 1 0.1% 11 0.7%

New York-New Jersey 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.0% 29 0.5%

Middle Atlantic 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 26 0.4%

Carolina 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.1% 129 6.2%

Tennessee Valley 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 20 0.9%

Louisville-Lexington-Evansville 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.0% 32 1.0%

Southeast 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 0.0% 370 5.0%

Upper Florida 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5 1.0% 23 4.7%

Tampa Bay 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 8 3.2% 22 8.8%

Southeastern Florida 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.2% 15 18.3%

Michigan Upper Peninsula 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.2%

Southern Michigan 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 20 0.5%

Eastern Ohio-Western Pennsylvania 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 21 0.3%

Ohio Valley 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 17 0.4%

Indiana 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10 0.3%

Chicago Regional 0 0.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 51 0.3%

Upper Midwest 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 71 0.3%

Iowa 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 21 0.3%

Nebraska-Western Iowa 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 8 0.4%

Eastern South Dakota 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10 0.5%

Central Illinois 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 0.7%

Southern Illinois-Eastern Missouri 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 7 0.4%

Southwest Plains 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 0.1% 174 2.5%

Eastern Colorado 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10 1.3% 28 3.7%

Western Colorado 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 1.5% 3 2.2%

Greater Kansas City 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 0.2%

Texas 0 0.0% 6 0.1% 65 1.4% 234 4.9%

New Mexico-West Texas 0 0.0% 11 1.2% 81 8.9% 178 19.6%

Southwestern Idaho-Eastern Oregon 0 0.0% 1 0.1% 9 0.6% 30 2.1%

Great Basin 0 0.0% 2 0.1% 4 0.2% 15 0.8%

Central Arizona 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.4% 12 5.0%

Pacific Northwest 0 0.0% 4 0.1% 5 0.2% 39 1.2%

Total 0 0.00% 26 0.02% 202 0.16% 1,632 1.29%
APPENDIX TABLE 4:

Breakdown of Male Dairy Farmers by Race and Hispanic Origin in the Current Orders.

% of Total

Current Total Dairy Farmers 

Orders Males Within Order

New England 1,455 90.1%

New York-New Jersey 6,045 94.6%

Middle Atlantic 5,835 97.1%

Carolina 1,949 93.2%

Tennessee Valley 2,085 90.9%

Louisville-Lexington-Evansville 3,107 94.5%

Southeast 6,886 92.2%

Upper Florida 423 86.2%

Tampa Bay 227 90.4%

Southeastern Florida 73 89.0%

Michigan Upper Peninsula 593 93.5%

Southern Michigan 4,164 95.9%

Eastern Ohio-Western Pennsylvania 5,837 95.5%

Ohio Valley 3,897 94.5%

Indiana 3,338 96.8%

Chicago Regional 19,897 96.6%

Upper Midwest 22,570 96.9%

Iowa 5,929 96.5%

Nebraska-Western Iowa 2,008 95.4%

Eastern South Dakota 1,862 97.6%

Central Illinois 294 95.5%

Southern Illinois-Eastern Missouri 1,516 95.9%

Southwest Plains 6,595 92.9%

Eastern Colorado 702 91.9%

Western Colorado 126 93.3%

Greater Kansas City 1,339 95.6%

Texas 4,356 91.1%

New Mexico-West Texas 850 93.6%

Southwestern Idaho-Eastern Oregon 1,314 93.1%

Great Basin 1,738 96.6%

Central Arizona 221 92.9%

Pacific Northwest 2,843 89.8%

Total 120,074 95.07%
APPENDIX TABLE 5:

Total Dairy Farms Located Within the Consolidated Orders. 1/

Consolidated Total 

Orders Dairy Farms

Northeast 18,632

Appalachian 8,129

Southeast 12,634

Florida 824

Mideast 18,560

Upper Midwest 44,758

Central 18,300

Southwest 6,093

Western 3,204

Arizona-Las Vegas 313

Pacific Northwest 3,174

Total 134,621

1/ Number of farms with at least one milk cow kept for production of milk.

SOURCE: 1992 U.S. Census of Agriculture, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce
APPENDIX TABLE 6: 

Breakdown of Female Dairy Farmers by Race and Hispanic Origin in the Consolidated Orders. 1/

Total % of White % of Total White % of Total Black % of Total

Consolidated Dairy Total Non-Hispanic Dairy Farmers Hispanic Dairy Farmers Non-Hispanic Dairy Farmers 

Orders Farmers Dairy Farmers Female Within Order Female Within Order Female Within Order

Northeast 18,632 13.8% 915 4.9% 1 0.0% 1 0.0%

Appalachian 8,129 6.0% 556 6.8% 0 0.0% 13 0.2%

Southeast 12,634 9.4% 862 6.8% 5 0.0% 47 0.4%

Florida 824 0.6% 94 11.4% 1 0.1% 5 0.6%

Mideast 18,560 13.8% 813 4.4% 2 0.0% 2 0.0%

Upper Midwest 44,758 33.2% 1,461 3.3% 13 0.0% 0 0.0%

Central 18,300 13.6% 799 4.4% 6 0.0% 9 0.0%

Southwest 6,093 4.5% 470 7.7% 16 0.3% 19 0.3%

Western 3,204 2.4% 156 4.9% 3 0.1% 0 0.0%

Arizona-Las Vegas 313 0.2% 21 6.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Pacific Northwest 3,174 2.4% 316 10.0% 2 0.1% 0 0.0%

Total 134,621 100.00% 6,463 4.80% 49 0.04% 96 0.07%

1/ Number of farms with at least one milk cow kept for production of milk.

SOURCE: 1992 U.S. Census of Agriculture, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce
APPENDIX TABLE 6: 

Breakdown of Female Dairy Farmers by Race and Hispanic Origin in the Consolidated Orders

Black % of Total Indian % of Total Indian % of Total Asian % of Total

Consolidated Hispanic Dairy Farmers Non-Hispanic Dairy Farmers Hispanic Dairy Farmers Non-Hispanic Dairy Farmers 

Orders Female Within Order Female Within Order Female Within Order Female Within Order

Northeast 0 0.0% 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 0.0%

Appalachian 0 0.0% 5 0.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Southeast 1 0.0% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Florida 0 0.0% 1 0.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Mideast 2 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Upper Midwest 0 0.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 0.0%

Central 0 0.0% 12 0.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Southwest 1 0.0% 5 0.1% 1 0.0% 0 0.0%

Western 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.0%

Arizona-Las Vegas 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Pacific Northwest 0 0.0% 3 0.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Total 4 0.003% 33 0.02% 1 0.001% 5 0.004%
APPENDIX TABLE 6: 

Breakdown of Female Dairy Farmers by Race and Hispanic Origin in the Consolidated Orders

Asian % of Total Other % of Total Other % of Total % of Total

Consolidated Hispanic Dairy Farmers Non-Hispanic Dairy Farmers Hispanic Dairy Farmers Total Dairy Farmers 

Orders Female Within Order Female Within Order Female Within Order Female Within Order

Northeast 0 0.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 922 4.9%

Appalachian 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 574 7.1%

Southeast 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.0% 920 7.3%

Florida 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 101 12.3%

Mideast 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 819 4.4%

Upper Midwest 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1,477 3.3%

Central 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.0% 827 4.5%

Southwest 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 11 0.2% 523 8.6%

Western 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 160 5.0%

Arizona-Las Vegas 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 21 6.7%

Pacific Northwest 0 0.0% 1 0.0% 2 0.1% 324 10.2%

Total 0 0.00% 2 0.001% 15 0.01% 6,668 4.95%
APPENDIX TABLE 7:

Breakdown of Male Dairy Farmers by Race and Hispanic Origin in the Consolidated Orders. 1/

Total % of White % of Total White % of Total Black % of Total

Consolidated Dairy Total Non-Hispanic Dairy Farmers Hispanic Dairy Farmers Non-Hispanic Dairy Farmers 

Orders Farmers Dairy Farmers Male Within Order Male Within Order Male Within Order

Northeast 18,632 13.8% 17,624 94.6% 53 0.3% 14 0.1%

Appalachian 8,129 6.0% 7,369 90.7% 28 0.3% 126 1.6%

Southeast 12,634 9.4% 11,304 89.5% 48 0.4% 327 2.6%

Florida 824 0.6% 663 80.5% 28 3.4% 16 1.9%

Mideast 18,560 13.8% 17,673 95.2% 47 0.3% 12 0.1%

Upper Midwest 44,758 33.2% 43,158 96.4% 85 0.2% 15 0.0%

Central 18,300 13.6% 17,239 94.2% 70 0.4% 29 0.2%

Southwest 6,093 4.5% 5,103 83.8% 167 2.7% 82 1.3%

Western 3,204 2.4% 3,000 93.6% 21 0.7% 2 0.1%

Arizona-Las Vegas 313 0.2% 270 86.3% 11 3.5% 0 0.0%

Pacific Northwest 3,174 2.4% 2,811 88.6% 16 0.5% 3 0.1%

Total 134,621 100.00% 126,214 93.76% 577 0.43% 626 0.47%

1/ Number of farms with at least one milk cow kept for production of milk.

SOURCE: 1992 U.S. Census of Agriculture, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce
APPENDIX TABLE 7:

Breakdown of Male Dairy Farmers by Race and Hispanic Origin in the Consolidated Orders

Black % of Total Indian % of Total Indian % of Total Asian % of Total

Consolidated Hispanic Dairy Farmers Non-Hispanic Dairy Farmers Hispanic Dairy Farmers Non-Hispanic Dairy Farmers 

Orders Male Within Order Male Within Order Male Within Order Male Within Order

Northeast 0 0.0% 8 0.0% 0 0.0% 7 0.0%

Appalachian 2 0.0% 26 0.3% 0 0.0% 2 0.0%

Southeast 0 0.0% 29 0.2% 0 0.0% 2 0.0%

Florida 0 0.0% 1 0.1% 0 0.0% 1 0.1%

Mideast 0 0.0% 6 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 0.0%

Upper Midwest 1 0.0% 12 0.0% 1 0.0% 8 0.0%

Central 2 0.0% 115 0.6% 1 0.0% 1 0.0%

Southwest 0 0.0% 28 0.5% 3 0.0% 0 0.0%

Western 0 0.0% 2 0.1% 0 0.0% 4 0.1%

Arizona-Las Vegas 0 0.0% 4 1.3% 1 0.3% 0 0.0%

Pacific Northwest 0 0.0% 10 0.3% 0 0.0% 1 0.0%

Total 5 0.004% 241 0.18% 6 0.004% 29 0.02%
APPENDIX TABLE 7:

Breakdown of Male Dairy Farmers by Race and Hispanic Origin in the Consolidated Orders

Asian % of Total Other % of Total Other % of Total Total % of Total

Consolidated Hispanic Dairy Farmers Non-Hispanic Dairy Farmers Hispanic Dairy Farmers Minority Dairy Farmers 

Orders Male Within Order Male Within Order Male Within Order Male Within Order

Northeast 0 0.0% 2 0.0% 2 0.0% 86 0.5%

Appalachian 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 0.0% 186 2.3%

Southeast 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 0.0% 410 3.2%

Florida 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 14 1.7% 60 7.3%

Mideast 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 68 0.4%

Upper Midwest 0 0.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 123 0.3%

Central 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 16 0.1% 234 1.3%

Southwest 0 0.0% 18 0.3% 169 2.8% 467 7.7%

Western 0 0.0% 3 0.1% 12 0.4% 44 1.4%

Arizona-Las Vegas 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6 1.9% 22 7.0%

Pacific Northwest 0 0.0% 4 0.1% 5 0.2% 39 1.2%

Total 0 0.00% 28 0.02% 230 0.17% 1739 1.29%
APPENDIX TABLE 7:

Breakdown of Male Dairy Farmers by Race and Hispanic Origin in the Consolidated Orders

% of Total

Consolidated Total Dairy Farmers 

Orders Males Within Order

Northeast 17,710 95.1%

Appalachian 7,555 92.9%

Southeast 11,714 92.7%

Florida 723 87.7%

Mideast 17,741 95.6%

Upper Midwest 43,281 96.7%

Central 17,473 95.5%

Southwest 5,570 91.4%

Western 3,044 95.0%

Arizona-Las Vegas 292 93.3%

Pacific Northwest 2,850 89.8%

Total 127,956 95.05%
APPENDIX TABLE 8:

Breakdown of the Female General Population by Race within the Current Orders.

% of White % of White % of % of

Current Total Total Non-Hispanic Population Hispanic Population Black Population

Orders Population Population Females Within Order Females Within Order Females Within Order

New England 11,188,043 4.2% 4,928,216 44.0% 283,452 2.5% 377,874 3.4%

New York-New Jersey 20,934,190 7.9% 6,852,918 32.7% 1,311,146 6.3% 2,010,125 9.6%

Middle Atlantic 15,400,944 5.8% 5,590,845 36.3% 301,799 2.0% 1,724,978 11.2%

Carolina 11,185,364 4.2% 4,090,841 36.6% 74,735 0.7% 1,474,348 13.2%

Tennessee Valley 3,066,904 1.2% 1,474,229 48.1% 11,476 0.4% 84,245 2.7%

Louisville-Lexington-Evansville 2,819,292 1.1% 1,301,374 46.2% 9,436 0.3% 129,015 4.6%

Southeast 24,646,868 9.3% 8,667,729 35.2% 187,342 0.8% 3,672,418 14.9%

Upper Florida 4,910,112 1.8% 1,870,394 38.1% 127,496 2.6% 437,201 8.9%

Tampa Bay 4,056,158 1.5% 1,708,441 42.1% 147,963 3.6% 211,698 5.2%

Southeastern Florida 5,085,096 1.9% 1,398,999 27.5% 703,131 13.8% 472,701 9.3%

Michigan Upper Peninsula 341,502 0.1% 159,750 46.8% 810 0.2% 520 0.2%

Sothern Michigan 8,736,044 3.3% 3,573,714 40.9% 101,019 1.2% 716,716 8.2%

Eastern Ohio-Western Pennsylvania 8,045,488 3.0% 3,652,553 45.4% 48,568 0.6% 442,910 5.5%

Ohio Valley 8,126,802 3.1% 3,707,830 45.6% 37,848 0.5% 378,391 4.7%

Indiana 5,237,373 2.0% 2,331,681 44.5% 59,501 1.1% 258,961 4.9%

Chicago Regional 12,603,186 4.7% 4,673,461 37.1% 545,123 4.3% 974,974 7.7%

Upper Midwest 5,696,947 2.1% 2,673,934 46.9% 37,017 0.6% 66,543 1.2%

Iowa 2,580,939 1.0% 1,243,406 48.2% 25,712 1.0% 31,753 1.2%

Nebraska-Western Iowa 2,005,987 0.8% 935,913 46.7% 32,153 1.6% 35,249 1.8%

Eastern South Dakota 443,839 0.2% 219,130 49.4% 1,233 0.3% 746 0.2%

Central Illinois 917,096 0.3% 427,497 46.6% 8,795 1.0% 26,405 2.9%

Southern Illinois-Eastern Missouri 4,391,753 1.7% 1,916,179 43.6% 23,534 0.5% 291,402 6.6%

Southwest Plains 5,854,140 2.2% 2,545,573 43.5% 89,821 1.5% 168,647 2.9%

Eastern Colorado 3,365,441 1.3% 1,339,019 39.8% 222,195 6.6% 81,721 2.4%

Western Colorado 204,406 0.1% 92,707 45.4% 9,175 4.5% 330 0.2%

Greater Kansas City 2,580,476 1.0% 1,108,030 42.9% 40,625 1.6% 141,099 5.5%

Texas 17,091,891 6.4% 5,069,331 29.7% 2,095,223 12.3% 1,176,033 6.9%

New Mexico-West Texas 3,282,698 1.2% 796,225 24.3% 704,140 21.5% 54,450 1.7%

Southwestern Idaho-Eastern Oregon 722,213 0.3% 321,667 44.5% 29,853 4.1% 1,798 0.2%

Great Basin 3,534,698 1.3% 1,462,887 41.4% 148,974 4.2% 66,271 1.9%

Central Arizona 3,999,938 1.5% 1,435,660 35.9% 406,693 10.2% 75,828 1.9%

Pacific Northwest 8,939,026 3.4% 3,870,367 43.3% 215,252 2.4% 120,387 1.3%

Total Federal Orders 211,994,852 79.7% 81,440,501 38.4% 8,041,240 3.8% 15,705,737 7.4%

Total U.S. 265,857,570 100.0% 99,070,490 37.3% 12,981,136 4.9% 17,799,544 6.7%

SOURCE: July 1, 1997, County Population Estimates by Age, Race, Sex and Hispanic Origin, 

 Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce
APPENDIX TABLE 8:

 Breakown of the Female General Population by Race within the Current Orders.

American % of Asian, % of % of

Current Indian, etc. Population etc. Population Total Population

Orders Females Within Order Females Within Order Females Within Order

New England 14,352 0.1% 161,994 1.4% 5,765,887 51.5%

New York-New Jersey 34,006 0.2% 641,730 3.1% 10,849,925 51.8%

Middle Atlantic 20,382 0.1% 291,492 1.9% 7,929,496 51.5%

Carolina 52,384 0.5% 65,347 0.6% 5,757,655 51.5%

Tennessee Valley 3,445 0.1% 9,328 0.3% 1,582,723 51.6%

Louisville-Lexington-Evansville 2,240 0.1% 11,071 0.4% 1,453,136 51.5%

Southeast 40,739 0.2% 154,895 0.6% 12,723,123 51.6%

Upper Florida 9,730 0.2% 52,341 1.1% 2,497,162 50.9%

Tampa Bay 6,726 0.2% 28,257 0.7% 2,103,085 51.8%

Southeastern Florida 7,160 0.1% 43,243 0.9% 2,625,234 51.6%

Michigan Upper Peninsula 5,298 1.6% 1,048 0.3% 167,426 49.0%

Sothern Michigan 22,976 0.3% 72,925 0.8% 4,487,349 51.4%

Eastern Ohio-Western Pennsylvania 6,685 0.1% 38,547 0.5% 4,189,265 52.1%

Ohio Valley 7,640 0.1% 43,325 0.5% 4,175,034 51.4%

Indiana 6,920 0.1% 27,090 0.5% 2,684,153 51.2%

Chicago Regional 26,951 0.2% 212,039 1.7% 6,432,547 51.0%

Upper Midwest 37,897 0.7% 65,703 1.2% 2,881,094 50.6%

Iowa 3,248 0.1% 16,863 0.7% 1,320,983 51.2%

Nebraska-Western Iowa 8,563 0.4% 12,367 0.6% 1,024,245 51.1%

Eastern South Dakota 2,979 0.7% 1,581 0.4% 225,669 50.8%

Central Illinois 830 0.1% 3,982 0.4% 467,509 51.0%

Southern Illinois-Eastern Missouri 4,093 0.1% 27,772 0.6% 2,262,980 51.5%

Southwest Plains 145,797 2.5% 38,638 0.7% 2,988,476 51.0%

Eastern Colorado 13,950 0.4% 45,950 1.4% 1,702,835 50.6%

Western Colorado 727 0.4% 766 0.4% 103,705 50.7%

Greater Kansas City 8,266 0.3% 20,977 0.8% 1,318,997 51.1%

Texas 39,145 0.2% 254,192 1.5% 8,633,924 50.5%

New Mexico-West Texas 88,673 2.7% 24,291 0.7% 1,667,779 50.8%

Southwestern Idaho-Eastern Oregon 3,100 0.4% 5,267 0.7% 361,685 50.1%

Great Basin 25,304 0.7% 57,016 1.6% 1,760,452 49.8%

Central Arizona 53,766 1.3% 46,017 1.2% 2,017,964 50.4%

Pacific Northwest 72,689 0.8% 217,286 2.4% 4,495,981 50.3%

Total Federal Orders 776,661 0.4% 2,693,340 1.3% 108,657,478 51.3%

Total U.S. 1,117,510 0.4% 4,781,672 1.8% 135,750,352 51.1%
APPENDIX TABLE 9:

Breakdown of the Male General Population by Race within the Current Orders.

% of White % of White % of % of

Current Total Total Non-Hispanic Population Hispanic Population Black Population

Orders Population Population Males Within Order Males Within Order Males Within Order

New England 11,188,043 4.2% 4,617,729 41.3% 284,281 2.5% 351,968 3.1%

New York-New Jersey 20,934,190 7.9% 6,419,173 30.7% 1,259,924 6.0% 1,744,839 8.3%

Middle Atlantic 15,400,944 5.8% 5,333,420 34.6% 315,702 2.0% 1,531,463 9.9%

Carolina 11,185,364 4.2% 3,924,897 35.1% 92,533 0.8% 1,298,986 11.6%

Tennessee Valley 3,066,904 1.2% 1,386,484 45.2% 12,201 0.4% 73,475 2.4%

Louisville-Lexington-Evansville 2,819,292 1.1% 1,226,806 43.5% 10,640 0.4% 115,849 4.1%

Southeast 24,646,868 9.3% 8,313,129 33.7% 212,288 0.9% 3,214,479 13.0%

Upper Florida 4,910,112 1.8% 1,819,229 37.1% 131,340 2.7% 405,711 8.3%

Tampa Bay 4,056,158 1.5% 1,569,898 38.7% 157,364 3.9% 194,859 4.8%

Southeastern Florida 5,085,096 1.9% 1,302,795 25.6% 670,055 13.2% 437,852 8.6%

Michigan Upper Peninsula 341,502 0.1% 161,342 47.2% 987 0.3% 5,052 1.5%

Southern Michigan 8,736,044 3.3% 3,427,379 39.2% 103,492 1.2% 624,952 7.2%

Eastern Ohio-Western Pennsylvania 8,045,488 3.0% 3,384,570 42.1% 48,915 0.6% 379,582 4.7%

Ohio Valley 8,126,802 3.1% 3,516,619 43.3% 38,877 0.5% 347,304 4.3%

Indiana 5,237,373 2.0% 2,225,496 42.5% 63,468 1.2% 231,483 4.4%

Chicago Regional 12,603,186 4.7% 4,475,824 35.5% 611,143 4.8% 853,288 6.8%

Upper Midwest 5,696,947 2.1% 2,606,393 45.8% 40,073 0.7% 70,280 1.2%

Iowa 2,580,939 1.0% 1,180,620 45.7% 27,618 1.1% 32,189 1.2%

Nebraska-Western Iowa 2,005,987 0.8% 891,152 44.4% 36,352 1.8% 34,086 1.7%

Eastern South Dakota 443,839 0.2% 210,420 47.4% 1,271 0.3% 1,380 0.3%

Central Illinois 917,096 0.3% 405,172 44.2% 10,313 1.1% 29,318 3.2%

Southern Illinois-Eastern Missouri 4,391,753 1.7% 1,814,797 41.3% 25,582 0.6% 257,022 5.9%

Southwest Plains 5,854,140 2.2% 2,425,861 41.4% 100,344 1.7% 163,522 2.8%

Eastern Colorado 3,365,441 1.3% 1,296,582 38.5% 228,531 6.8% 83,361 2.5%

Western Colorado 204,406 0.1% 89,162 43.6% 9,576 4.7% 577 0.3%

Greater Kansas City 2,580,476 1.0% 1,060,530 41.1% 43,141 1.7% 131,475 5.1%

Texas 17,091,891 6.4% 4,878,667 28.5% 2,198,775 12.9% 1,094,278 6.4%

New Mexico-West Texas 3,282,698 1.2% 765,859 23.3% 685,140 20.9% 59,524 1.8%

Southwestern Idaho-Eastern Oregon 722,213 0.3% 315,983 43.8% 34,240 4.7% 2,341 0.3%

Great Basin 3,534,698 1.3% 1,466,482 41.5% 164,618 4.7% 68,045 1.9%

Central Arizona 3,999,938 1.5% 1,377,329 34.4% 432,421 10.8% 79,241 2.0%

Pacific Northwest 8,939,026 3.4% 3,787,000 42.4% 254,775 2.9% 134,159 1.5%

Total Federal Orders 211,994,852 79.7% 77,676,796 36.7% 8,305,980 3.9% 14,051,939 6.6%

Total U.S. 265,857,570 100.0% 94,702,841 35.6% 13,740,437 5.2% 16,088,222 6.1%

SOURCE: July 1, 1997, County Population Estimates by Age, Race, Sex and Hispanic Origin, 

 Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce
APPENDIX TABLE 9:

Breakdown of the Male General Population by Race within the Current Orders.

American % of % of Total % of % of

Current Indian Population Asian Population Minority Population Total Population

Orders Males Within Order Males Within Order Males Within Order Males Within Order

New England 13,944 0.1% 154,234 1.4% 804,427 7.2% 5,422,156 48.5%

New York-New Jersey 34,003 0.2% 626,325 3.0% 3,665,091 17.5% 10,084,264 48.2%

Middle Atlantic 20,734 0.1% 270,128 1.8% 2,138,028 13.9% 7,471,448 48.5%

Carolina 52,171 0.5% 59,122 0.5% 1,502,812 13.4% 5,427,709 48.5%

Tennessee Valley 3,362 0.1% 8,659 0.3% 97,697 3.2% 1,484,181 48.4%

Louisville-Lexington-Evansville 2,362 0.1% 10,499 0.4% 139,350 4.9% 1,366,156 48.5%

Southeast 41,363 0.2% 142,486 0.6% 3,610,616 14.6% 11,923,745 48.4%

Upper Florida 10,238 0.2% 46,432 0.9% 593,721 12.1% 2,412,950 49.1%

Tampa Bay 7,184 0.2% 23,768 0.6% 383,175 9.4% 1,953,073 48.2%

Southeastern Florida 7,122 0.1% 42,038 0.8% 1,157,067 22.8% 2,459,862 48.4%

Michigan Upper Peninsula 5,504 1.6% 1,191 0.3% 12,734 3.7% 174,076 51.0%

Southern Michigan 22,309 0.3% 70,563 0.8% 821,316 9.4% 4,248,694 48.6%

Eastern Ohio-Western Pennsylvania 6,483 0.1% 36,672 0.5% 471,653 5.9% 3,856,223 47.9%

Ohio Valley 7,945 0.1% 41,024 0.5% 435,149 5.4% 3,951,768 48.6%

Indiana 7,313 0.1% 25,460 0.5% 327,724 6.3% 2,553,220 48.8%

Chicago Regional 27,443 0.2% 202,941 1.6% 1,694,815 13.4% 6,170,638 49.0%

Upper Midwest 37,499 0.7% 61,609 1.1% 209,460 3.7% 2,815,853 49.4%

Iowa 3,148 0.1% 16,382 0.6% 79,336 3.1% 1,259,956 48.8%

Nebraska-Western Iowa 8,413 0.4% 11,739 0.6% 90,590 4.5% 981,742 48.9%

Eastern South Dakota 3,492 0.8% 1,607 0.4% 7,750 1.7% 218,170 49.2%

Central Illinois 811 0.1% 3,973 0.4% 44,415 4.8% 449,587 49.0%

Southern Illinois-Eastern Missouri 4,468 0.1% 26,904 0.6% 313,976 7.1% 2,128,773 48.5%

Southwest Plains 139,455 2.4% 36,482 0.6% 439,804 7.5% 2,865,664 49.0%

Eastern Colorado 13,596 0.4% 40,536 1.2% 366,024 10.9% 1,662,606 49.4%

Western Colorado 744 0.4% 642 0.3% 11,539 5.6% 100,701 49.3%

Greater Kansas City 8,150 0.3% 18,183 0.7% 200,949 7.8% 1,261,479 48.9%

Texas 41,411 0.2% 244,836 1.4% 3,579,300 20.9% 8,457,967 49.5%

New Mexico-West Texas 83,023 2.5% 21,373 0.7% 849,060 25.9% 1,614,919 49.2%

Southwestern Idaho-Eastern Oregon 3,254 0.5% 4,710 0.7% 44,545 6.2% 360,528 49.9%

Great Basin 24,531 0.7% 50,570 1.4% 307,764 8.7% 1,774,246 50.2%

Central Arizona 50,903 1.3% 42,082 1.1% 604,646 15.1% 1,981,975 49.6%

Pacific Northwest 72,771 0.8% 194,340 2.2% 656,045 7.3% 4,443,045 49.7%

Total Federal Orders 765,150 0.4% 2,537,510 1.2% 25,660,578 12.1% 103,337,374 48.7%

Total U.S. 1,099,969 0.4% 4,475,749 1.7% 35,404,377 13.3% 130,107,218 48.9%
APPENDIX TABLE 10:

Breakdown of the Female General Population by Race within the Consolidated Orders.

% of White % of White % of % of 

Consolidated Total Total Non-Hispanic Population Hispanic Population Black Population

Orders Population Population Females Within Order Females Within Order Females Within Order

Northeast 48,950,903 18.4% 18,052,058 36.9% 1,907,556 3.9% 4,125,337 8.4%

Appalachian 17,324,325 6.5% 6,993,134 40.4% 96,208 0.6% 1,687,754 9.7%

Southeast 26,974,944 10.1% 9,784,372 36.3% 201,026 0.7% 3,713,702 13.8%

Florida 14,051,366 5.3% 4,977,834 35.4% 978,590 7.0% 1,121,600 8.0%

Mideast 30,851,271 11.6% 13,595,046 44.1% 256,468 0.8% 1,802,009 5.8%

Upper Midwest 18,537,456 7.0% 7,466,248 40.3% 580,772 3.1% 1,041,428 5.6%

Central 21,521,677 8.1% 9,418,186 43.8% 450,712 2.1% 774,024 3.6%

Southwest 21,251,067 8.0% 6,021,551 28.3% 3,068,974 14.4% 1,247,291 5.9%

Western 3,150,864 1.2% 1,408,241 44.7% 101,811 3.2% 10,681 0.3%

Arizona-Las Vegas 5,661,013 2.1% 1,961,384 34.6% 530,524 9.4% 135,847 2.4%

Pacific Northwest 8,960,309 3.4% 3,880,439 43.3% 215,511 2.4% 120,406 1.3%

Total Consolidated Orders 217,235,196 81.7% 83,558,492 38.5% 8,388,151 3.9% 15,780,078 7.3%

Total U.S. 265,895,746 100.0% 99,083,768 37.3% 12,981,921 4.9% 17,801,914 6.7%

SOURCE: July 1, 1997, County Population Estimates by Age, Race, Sex and Hispanic Origin, 

 Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce
APPENDIX TABLE 10:

Breakdown of the Female General Population by Race within the Consolidated Orders.

American % of Asian, % of % of 

Consolidated Indian, etc. Population etc. Population Total Population

Orders Females Within Order Females Within Order Females Within Order

Northeast 72,307 0.1% 1,103,647 2.3% 25,260,904 51.6%

Appalachian 58,230 0.3% 85,986 0.5% 8,921,312 51.5%

Southeast 48,657 0.2% 164,861 0.6% 13,912,618 51.6%

Florida 23,616 0.2% 123,841 0.9% 7,225,481 51.4%

Mideast 49,727 0.2% 183,889 0.6% 15,887,138 51.5%

Upper Midwest 66,393 0.4% 278,600 1.5% 9,433,441 50.9%

Central 182,066 0.8% 163,219 0.8% 10,988,207 51.1%

Southwest 129,975 0.6% 280,391 1.3% 10,748,182 50.6%

Western 22,949 0.7% 33,442 1.1% 1,577,124 50.1%

Arizona-Las Vegas 136,589 2.4% 77,306 1.4% 2,841,650 50.2%

Pacific Northwest 72,936 0.8% 217,396 2.4% 4,506,688 50.3%

Total Consolidated Orders 863,445 0.4% 2,712,578 1.2% 111,302,745 51.2%

Total U.S. 1,117,615 0.4% 4,782,685 1.8% 135,767,903 51.1%
APPENDIX TABLE 11:

Breakdown of the Male General Population by Race within the Consolidated Orders.

% of White % of White % of % of 

Consolidated Total Total Non-Hispanic Population Hispanic Population Black Population

Orders Population Population Males Within Order Males Within Order Males Within Order

Northeast 48,950,903 18.4% 17,031,425 34.8% 1,874,567 3.8% 3,653,298 7.5%

Appalachian 17,324,325 6.5% 6,661,626 38.5% 115,998 0.7% 1,488,872 8.6%

Southeast 26,974,944 10.1% 9,376,629 34.8% 227,559 0.8% 3,257,213 12.1%

Florida 14,051,366 5.3% 4,691,922 33.4% 958,759 6.8% 1,038,422 7.4%

Mideast 30,851,271 11.6% 12,879,943 41.7% 265,009 0.9% 1,593,838 5.2%

Upper Midwest 18,537,456 7.0% 7,198,395 38.8% 649,861 3.5% 923,815 5.0%

Central 21,521,677 8.1% 8,993,039 41.8% 482,244 2.2% 731,089 3.4%

Southwest 21,251,067 8.0% 5,792,241 27.3% 3,144,800 14.8% 1,171,403 5.5%

Western 3,150,864 1.2% 1,392,893 44.2% 113,578 3.6% 13,947 0.4%

Arizona-Las Vegas 5,661,013 2.1% 1,917,654 33.9% 564,593 10.0% 138,838 2.5%

Pacific Northwest 8,960,309 3.4% 3,796,964 42.4% 255,063 2.8% 134,178 1.5%

Total Consolidated Orders 217,235,196 81.7% 79,732,731 36.7% 8,652,031 4.0% 14,144,913 6.5%

Total U.S. 265,895,746 100.0% 94,718,461 35.6% 13,741,528 5.2% 16,091,438 6.1%

SOURCE: July 1, 1997, County Population Estimates by Age, Race, Sex and Hispanic Origin, 

 Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce
APPENDIX TABLE 11:

Breakdown of the Male General Population by Race within the Consolidated Orders.

American % of Asian, % of % of Total % of 

Consolidated Indian, etc. Population etc. Population Total Population Minority Population

Orders Males Within Order Males Within Order Males Within Order Males Within Order

Northeast 72,428 0.1% 1,058,281 2.2% 23,690,000 48.4% 6,658,575 13.6%

Appalachian 58,017 0.3% 78,500 0.5% 8,403,013 48.5% 1,741,387 10.1%

Southeast 49,168 0.2% 151,757 0.6% 13,062,326 48.4% 3,685,697 13.7%

Florida 24,544 0.2% 112,238 0.8% 6,825,885 48.6% 2,133,963 15.2%

Mideast 49,598 0.2% 175,745 0.6% 14,964,133 48.5% 2,084,191 6.8%

Upper Midwest 66,650 0.4% 265,294 1.4% 9,104,015 49.1% 1,905,620 10.3%

Central 176,364 0.8% 150,734 0.7% 10,533,470 48.9% 1,540,431 7.2%

Southwest 126,633 0.6% 267,808 1.3% 10,502,885 49.4% 4,710,644 22.2%

Western 22,363 0.7% 30,959 1.0% 1,573,740 49.9% 180,847 5.7%

Arizona-Las Vegas 129,751 2.3% 68,527 1.2% 2,819,363 49.8% 901,709 15.9%

Pacific Northwest 73,015 0.8% 194,401 2.2% 4,453,621 49.7% 656,657 7.3%

Total Consolidated Orders 848,531 0.4% 2,554,244 1.2% 105,932,451 48.8% 26,199,720 12.1%

Total U.S. 1,100,096 0.4% 4,476,320 1.7% 130,127,843 48.9% 35,409,382 13.3%
APPENDIX B: UNIVERSITY CONTACTS

1890 LAND-GRANT UNIVERSITIES (6 pages)

HISPANIC ASSOCIATION OF

COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES (7 pages)

TRIBAL COLLEGES (3 pages)
















APPENDIX C: MARKET ADMINISTRATOR

CIVIL RIGHTS OUTREACH PLANS

ALBANY (4 pages)

ALEXANDRIA (4 pages)

ATLANTA (7 pages)

BOSTON (2 pages)

CARROLLTON (4 pages)

CHICAGO (8 pages)

CLEVELAND (5 pages)

KANSAS CITY (3 pages)

LOUISVILLE (3 pages)

MINNEAPOLIS (4 pages)

PHOENIX (2 pages)

SEATTLE (5 pages)

TULSA (2 pages)
CIVIL RIGHTS OUTREACH PLAN

New York - New Jersey Market Administrator Office

Albany, New York

Targeted

Audience: Hispanic, Black, American Indian, and Asian dairy producers, female dairy

producers, and disabled dairy producers.

Purpose: The purpose of this outreach plan is to educate minority dairy producers on

the contents of the final rule to ensure effective participation in the

referendum process.

Actions:

General Outreach Initiatives

C The NYNJMA currently provides a link on its web-site to the USDA Dairy

Programs federal order reform web-site area. The final rule and related

informational material written in Spanish will be available at that internet

location.

C The monthly Market Administrator’s Bulletin is mailed to all dairy

producers and includes dairy producers in the targeted audience. This

Bulletin serves as the primary means for alerting producers to federal order

reform activities.

C The referendum procedures to be conducted under Order No. 2 will ensure

that all dairy producers are made aware of the final rule and given an

opportunity to participate in the referendum process.

C The NYNJMA will continue to provide equal opportunity access in all

programs, activities, and services. All managers and supervisors will

receive training to ensure awareness of policies, practices, and procedures

to ensure effective communication with all customers. All employees

holding a “public contact position” will be made aware of this targeted

civil rights outreach plan.

C Major dairy cooperative organizations operating in the region will be

contacted and requested to assist in developing outreach plans to identify

members in the targeted audience.

C During March-April 1999 the annual educational outreach program will be

held under Order No. 2 for cooperative payment purposes. The program

will contain a short announcement identifying the special emphasis

outreach to the targeted audience.
-2-

C The NYNJMA will contact the state Farm Service Agency (FSA) Offices

in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Copies of each state’s

Targeted Outreach Plans will be obtained to identify demographic profiles

for all farmers in each state. Available information from the NYNJMA

will be used to estimate the dairy farmer subset belonging to the targeted

civil rights outreach audience.

C The NYNJMA will consult with state FSA, National Agricultural Statistics

Service (NASS), and Cooperative Extension offices to further identify

affiliated target audience communities that have been under-served.

C All public meeting announcements will list a contact person to make

arrangements for any special accommodations.

Outreach to African American, Asian American, Hispanic, and Native American Dairy

Producers

C Targeted outreach initiatives will be developed based on identifying

producers in the targeted audience.

C Appropriate print and broadcast media will be contacted.

Outreach to Female Dairy Producers

C The NYNJMA has scheduled an outreach meeting with the NY chapter of

WIFE - Women Involved in Farm Economics S during mid-April 1999. 

NY WIFE will cooperate with targeted outreach initiatives by publicizing

the proposed rule in either a special mailing or in their regular newsletter.

C The Pennsylvania Agri-Women Association will be contacted to further

publicize the proposed rule.

Outreach to Disabled Dairy Producers

C AgriAbility Project coordinators for New Jersey, New York, and

Pennsylvania will be contacted to assist in distributing information to the

targeted audience.
-3-

Contacts and Addresses:

Affiliate Presidents of American AgriWomen

Gail McPherson

Penn’s Agri-Women

251 East Maple Lawn Road

New Park, PA 17352

_______________________________________

National AgrAbility Project

New Jersey AgrAbility Project

Wei Zhao - zhao@aesop.rutgers.edu

Phone: (908) 932-9754

Fax: (908) 932-7931

New Jersey AgrAbility Project

Rutgers University - Cook Campus

Bioresource Department

20 Ag Extension Way

New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8500

_______________________________________

Garth Heid - geeheid@aol.com

Phone: (609) 392-4004 Ext. 533

Fax: (609) 392-3505

New Jersey AgrAbility Project

United Cerebral Palsy Association

354 South Broad Street

Trenton, NJ 08608

____________________________________

New York AgrAbility Project

Joe Phillips - nycamh@lakenet.org

Phone: (800) 343-7527

Fax: (607) 547-6087

Bassett Healthcare

NY Center for Ag Medicine and Health

One Atwell Road

Cooperstown, NY 13326

________________________________________

_

Pennsylvania AgrAbility Project

Doug Schaufler - dhs106@psu.edu

Phone: (814) 863-7868

Fax: (814) 863-4753

Pennsylvania AgrAbility Project

Pennsylvania State University

Dept Of Ag & Exten Educ

323 Ag Admin Bldg

University Park, PA 16802

_______________________________________

Linda Fetzer - lfm8@psu.edu

Phone: TDD/TTY: (814) 238-4434

Fax: (814) 238-3721

AgrAbility for Pennsylvanians

Easter Seal Society of Central Pennsylvania

1300 South Allen Street

State College, PA 16801

_______________________________________

1999 WIFE (Women Involved in Farm

Economics) State Presidents

New York

Mary Alger (Burt)

7011 Oatman Road

Boonville, NY 13309

Phone: (315) 942-5369 EST

Message Ph: (315) 827-4934

E-mail: highmeadows@juno.com

_______________________________________

WIFE

National Dairy Chair

Ruth Laribee

RD 1 Box 263

Lowville, NY 13367

Phone: (315) 376-7269 EST

_______________________________________
-4-

Farm Service Agencies

New York State FSA Office

411 S. Salina Street

Suite 356, 5th Floor

Syracuse, NY 13202

Marc Smith

State Executive Director

Phone: (315) 477-6300

___________________________________

New Jersey State FSA Office

Mastoris Professional Plaza

163 Route 130, Bldg. 2

Suite E

Bordentown, NJ 08505-2249

Debra Borie-Holtz

State Executive Director

Phone: (609) 298-3446

Fax (609) 298-8761

___________________________________

Pennsylvania State FSA Office

Suite 320

One Credit Union Pl.

Harrisburg, PA 17110-2994

William Baumgartner

State Executive Director

Phone: (717) 237-2113

___________________________________

State Agricultural Statistics Offices

New York Agricultural Statistics Service

State Statistician: Stephen Ropel

Department of Agriculture & Markets

1 Winners Circle

Albany, NY 12235

Voice: (518) 457-5570

Fax: (518) 453-6564

E-mail: nass-ny@nass.usda.gov

________________________________________

_

New Jersey Agricultural Statistics Service

State Statistician: Vic Tolomeo

P. O. Box 330

Trenton, NJ 08625

Voice: (609) 292-6385

Fax: (609) 633-9231

E-mail: nass-nj@nass.usda.gov

___________________________________

Pennsylvania Agricultural Statistics Service

State Statistician: W. C. Evans

Phone: (717) 787-3904

Fax: (717) 782-4011

2301 North Cameron Street

Harrisburg, PA 17110-9405

E-mail: nass-pa@nass.usda.gov

___________________________________
CIVIL RIGHTS OUTREACH PLAN

MIDDLE ATLANTIC MARKET ADMINISTRATOR OFFICE

Alexandria, Virginia

Targeted

Audiences: Hispanic, Black, America Indian and Asia dairy producers, female dairy

producers, and disabled dairy producers.

Purpose: The purpose of this outreach plan is to educate minority dairy producers on the

contents of the final rule to ensure effective participation in the referendum

process.

Actions:

C Maintain printed copies of the Spanish informational materials for dissemination

as requested.

C Contact Agriculture/Dairy Science Department at the following 1890 Universities

to:

-schedule informational meetings to discuss final rule contents with faculty

and students

-obtain information/mailing lists of targeted producers to send

informational materials

C Delaware State University

Median (Bill) Vidrine

Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources

1200 North Dupont Highway, Room 115

Dover, DE 19901

Phone: (302) 677-1937/739-4900

Fax: (302) 739-4997

Voice: 448-1010

C University of Maryland Eastern Shore

Loney B. Stewart, Jr.

Princess Anne, MD 21853

Phone: (410) 651-6313

Fax: (410) 651-7931

Voice: 448-1075

E-Mail: LSTEWART@UMES-BIRD.UMD.EDU
-2-

C Virginia State University

Cheryl Jackson-Brown

P.O. Box 9081

Owens hall, Room 100

Petersburg, VA 23806

Phone: (804) 524-5470

Fax: (804) 524-5967

Voice: 448-1110

C West Virginia State College

Carl Butler

P.O. Box 143 - WVSC

Institute, WV 25112

Phone: (304) 766-4163

Fax: (304) 766-5182

C Contact Agriculture/Dairy Science Department at the following HACU 

Universities to:

-establish contact persons/departments

-schedule informational meetings to discuss final rule contents with faculty

and students

-obtain information/mailing lists of targeted producers to send

informational materials

Community College of Philadelphia

The Pennsylvania State University

C Contact the National President of WIFE-Women Involved In Farm Economics to:

-obtain information/mailing lists of local chapters

-schedule informational meetings to discuss final rule contents with

members

C WIFE

Sheila Massey

P.O. Box 70

Animas, New Mexico 88020

Phone: (505)-548-2705

Fax: (505)-548-2613
-3-

C Contact the following offices for Agri-Women, and MANRRS-Minorities in Agriculture,

Natural Resource and Related Sciences to:

-schedule informational meetings to discuss final rule contents with members

-submit information for local newsletter

-obtain information/mailing lists of targeted producers to send informational

materials

C Penn’s Agri-Women

Gail McPherson

251 East maple Lawn Road

New Park, PA 17352

C MANRRS Region I VP

Norman Barclift

207 Carlisle Dr.

Dover, DE 19904

Phone: (302)-677-0752

Voice: 888-700-3061

E-Mail: nbarclift@hotmail.com

C Contact the following state AgrAbility chapters (program for Farmers with

Disabilities) to:

-submit information for state newsletter

-obtain information/mailing list of targeted producers to send

informational materials

C Delaware AgrAbility Project 

Ronald Jester

University of Delaware

RD 6 Box 48

Georgetown, DE 19947

Phone: (302)-856-7303 ext. 310

Fax: (302)-856-1845

E-Mail: ronaldjester@mvs.udel.edu

C New Jersey AgrAbility Project 

Wei Zhao

Rutgers University - Cook Campus

Bioresource Department

20 Ag Extension Way

New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8500
-4-

Phone: (908)-932-9754

Fax: (908)-932-7931

E-Mail: zhao@aesop.rutgers.edu

C Pennsylvania AgrAbility Project 

Doug Schaufler

The Pennsylvania State University

Dept of Ag & Exten Educ

323 Ag Admin Bldg

University Park, PA 16802

Phone: (814)-863-7868

Fax: (814)-863-4753

E-Mail: dhs106@psu.edu

C Identify and contact any minority agriculture organizations that are having

national/regional meetings to:

-obtain speaking opportunity

-provide information for distribution to participants

C Work with local extension agents to organize meetings targeted to minorities

regarding the final rule.

C Identify local minority targeted media and submit information for publication.

C Contact local cooperatives and obtain any information or mailing lists that may

assist in contacting minority producers.

C Contact the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau and the Pennsylvania Dairy Stakeholders

to obtain any information or mailing lists that may assist in contacting minority

producers.

C Joel Rotz

Pennsylvania Farm Bureau

P.O. Box 8736

Camp Hill, PA 17001

C Alan Bair

Pennsylvania Dairy Stakeholders

777 West Harrisburg Pike

Middletown, PA 17057

C Publish information concerning the Final Rule and referendum process in the
-5-

Market Administrator’s Bulletin which is distributed to all producers and known

interested parties.

C Include on all announcements regarding meetings a contact person to make

arrangements for any special accommodations.
Civil Rights Outreach Plan

Federal Order Reform

Atlanta Market Administrator Office

1

Targeted

Audiences: Hispanic, Black, American Indian and Asian dairy producers, female dairy

producers, and disabled dairy producers.

Purpose: The purpose of this outreach plan is to educate minority dairy producers

on the contents of the final rule to ensure effective participation in the

referendum process.

Actions

q Provide a link from the Atlanta Market Administrator website to the Dairy Programs

website which will contain informational materials on the final rule in Spanish.

q Maintain printed copies of Spanish informational materials for dissemination as

requested.

q Publicize that informational materials are available in English and Spanish in the

monthly Bulletin and Florida Fluid Milk Report.

q Send informational materials to all non-member dairy producers.

q Contact agriculture/dairy or food science/extension agents at 1890 Land Grant

Universities located in the Southeast and Florida Marketing Areas. (List attached)

ß Obtain a contact person to be added to list of interested parties mailings.

ß Inform them of the availability of informational materials.

ß Inquire about publications such as alumni newsletters and other publications for which

we could provide informational articles or source materials.

ß Inquire about any targeted groups or organizations to which we could provide

information.

ß Inquire about any other outlets for dissemination of information.

ß Inform them of our availability to conduct informational meetings.

ß Inform them of any scheduled information meetings to be held.

q Contact State Departments of Agriculture/Health to identify targeted groups and

organizations for which we can provide informational materials. (List attached)
Civil Rights Outreach Plan

Federal Order Reform

Atlanta Market Administrator Office

2

Actions

q Contact Women Involved in Farm Economics (WIFE) state presidents, AgrAbility

and Minorities in Agriculture, Natural Resource and Related Sciences (MANRRS)

chapters in the Southeast and Florida marketing areas. (List attached)

ß Identify contact person to be added to list of interested parties mailings.

ß Inform them of the availability of informational materials.

ß Inquire about publications such as newsletters for which we could provide

informational articles or source materials.

ß Inform them of our availability to conduct informational meetings.

ß Inform them of any scheduled information meetings to be held.

q Contact Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU) member

institutions in the Southeast and Florida Marketing Areas. (List attached)

ß Identify minority agriculture organizations and contacts to be added to interested

parties mailings.

ß Inform them of the availability of informational materials.

ß Identify Spanish media (newpapers) for publication of informational materials.

ß Inquire about publications such as newsletters for which we could provide

informational articles or source materials.

ß Inform them of our availability to conduct informational meetings.

ß Inform them of any scheduled information meetings to be held.

q Contact local cooperatives in the Southeast and Florida Marketing Areas. (List

attached)

ß Inform them of special efforts and information available to reach targeted groups.

ß Inform them of our availability to conduct informational meetings.

ß Inform them of any scheduled information meetings to be held.

q Include on all announcements regarding meetings a contact person to make

arrangements for any special accommodations.
Civil Rights Outreach Plan

Federal Order Reform

Atlanta Market Administrator Office

3

List of Contacts

1890 Land Grant Universities

Jane Ford-Wilson

Alabama A&M University

School of Agricultural and Environmental

Sciences

Room 300 Dawson, Extension Bldg

PO Box 1477

Normal, AL 35762

Telephone: 205-851-5417

 Fax: 205-851-5906

Clifton Peters

Alcorn State University

100 ASU Drive #1139

Room 104 Agriculture Science Bldg

Lorman, MS 39096

Telephone: 601-877-3849

 Fax: 601-877-3821

E-mail: CEPETERS@LORMAN.ALCORN.EDU

Rozier Crew

Florida A&M University

Box 338

Tallahassee, FL 32307-4100

Telephone: 904-561-2191

 Fax: 904-561-2794

E-mail: CREWR@NETTALLY.COM

Levi Glover

Fort Valley State College

Agricultural Research Station

Fort Valley, GA 31030

Telephone: 912-825-6806

 Fax: 912-825-6376

E-mail: LGLOVER@FVS3.FVSC.PEACH.NET

Orlando Phelps

Southern University

PO Box 54051

Baton Rouge, LA 70892

Telephone: 504-771-3660

 Fax: 504-771-5134

William A. Nesby

Tennessee State University

PO Box 9629

3500 John Merritt Bldg

Nashville, TN 37209-1561

Telephone: 615-963-5442/321-2051

 Fax: 615-321-2165

E-mail: A16TN1890@ATTMAIL.COM

Louis Black, Jr.

Tuskegee University

College of Agriculture, Environmental, and

Natural Sciences

Campbell Hall, Room 103

Tuskegee, AL 36088

Telephone: 334-724-4493

 Fax: 334-727-8493

George W. Richardson

University of Arkansas-Pine Bluff

PO Box 4806. UAPB

1200 North University Ave

Pine Bluff, AR 71601

Telephone: 501-541-0047

 Fax: 501-535-6984

E-mail: RICHARDSONG@VX4500.UAPB.EDU
Civil Rights Outreach Plan

Federal Order Reform

Atlanta Market Administrator Office

4

List of Contacts

State Departments of Agriculture/Health

Alabama

Mr. G.M. Gallaspy

Alabama Dept of Health

Bureau of Environmental Services

Suite 1250

PO Box 303017

Montgomery, AL 36130

Telephone: 334-206-5375

 Fax: 334-206-5788

Arkansas

Mr. William Clayton

Milk and Dairy Products Control

Arkansas Dept of Health

4815 W. Markham Street Slot 46

Little Rock, AR 72205-3867

Telephone: 501-661-2171

 Fax: 501-661-2572

E-mail: bclayton@mail.doh.state.ar.us

Florida

Mr. Hines Boyd

Div. of Dairy Industry

Florida Dept of Agriculture and

Consumer Services

3125 Conner Blvd

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1650

Telephone: 850-487-1450

 Fax: 850-922-9444

E-mail: boydh@doacs.state.fl.us

Georgia

Mr. Charles Murphy

Dairy Regulatory Division

Georgia Dept of Agriculture

19 Martin Luther King Drive

Atlanta, GA 30334

Telephone: 404-656-3625

 Fax: 404-656-3723

Louisiana

Mr. Richard F. Graham

Admin. Milk and Dairy Product Unit

Louisiana Dept of Health & Hospitals

6867 Bluebonnet Blvd

Baton Rouge, LA 70810

Telephone: 225-763-5553

 Fax: 225-763-5552

Mississippi

Mr. Robert J. Prescott

Dairy Farm Inspection Branch

Mississippi Dept of Health

PO Box 1700

Jackson, MS 39215-1700

Telephone: 601-576-7691

 Fax: 601-576-7632

E-mail: rjprescott@msdh.state.ms.us

Missouri

Mr. Terry Long

Missouri State Milk Board

915-C Leslie Blvd

Jefferson City, MO 65101

Telephone: 573-751-3830

 Fax: 573-751-2527

Tennessee

Mr. Jimmy Hopper

Division of Regulatory Services

Tennessee Dept of Agriculture

Ellington Agricultural Center

Box 40627, Melrose Station

Nashville, TN 37204

Telephone: 615-837-5150

 Fax: 615-837-5335
Civil Rights Outreach Plan

Federal Order Reform

Atlanta Market Administrator Office

5

List of Contacts

Women Involved in Farm Economics (WIFE) Chapters

Alabama

Clara Spivey (Winston)

PO Box 39

Louisville, AL 36048

Arkansas

Susan Hoskins (Dustin)

1916 Weidner

Stuttgard, AR 72160

Florida

Brenda Bunting

500 NE 3rd Street

Belle Glade, FL 33430

Mississippi

Pamela B. Walker (Sam)

PO Box 820392

Vicksburg, MS 39182

AgrAbility

Dan Underwood

Louisiana AgrAbility Project

Easter Seal Society of Louisiana, Inc.

305 Baronne St, Suite 400

New Orleans, LA 70112-1618

Telephone: 504-523-7325

 Fax: 504-523-3465

Lisa Ketcham

Mississippi AgrAbility Project

AgrAbility for Mississippians

Mississippi Easter Seal Society

3226 North State Street

PO Box 4958

Jackson, MS 39296-4958

Telephone: 601-362-2585

 Fax: 601-982-1951

E-mail: LketchumAg@aol.com

Herb Willcut/Emily Knight

Mississippi AgrAbility Project

Mississippi State University

PO Box 9632, 110 Moore Road

Dept of Ag & Bio Engineering

Mississippi State, MS 39762

Telephone: 601-325-3103

 Fax: 601-325-3853

E-mail: hw@abe.msstate.edu

 Erk@abe.msstate.edu 

H. Willard Downs

Missouri AgrAbility Project

University of Missouri

205 Agricultural Engineering Bldg

Columbia, MO 65211

Telephone: 573-882-2731

 Fax: 573-884-5650

E-mail: wdowns@showme.missouri.edu

Brad Marsh

Missouri AgrAbility Project

Services for Independent Living

1301 Vandiver Drive, Suite Q

Columbia, MO 65202

Telephone: 573-874-1646

 Fax: 573-574-3564

E-mail: marshb@missouri.edu

Rich Guider

Tennessee AgrAbility Project

Easter Seals

2001 Woodmont Blvd

Nashville, TN 38301

Telephone: 615-292-6640 Ext 114

 Fax: 615-292-7206

E-mail: easterseals@mindspring.com
Civil Rights Outreach Plan

Federal Order Reform

Atlanta Market Administrator Office

6

List of Contacts

Minorities in Agriculture, Natural Resources and Related Sciences (MANNRRS)

Latersa Hampton

Region III VP

PO Box 4126

Pine Bluff, AR 71611

Telephone: 870-540-5120

E-mail: lhampton@hotmail.com

Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities

Barry University

11300 NE Second Ave

Miami Shores, FL 53161

Telephone: 800-756-6000

Florida International University

University Park

Miami, FL 33199

Telephone: 305-348-2363

Miami-Dade Community College

300 NE Second Ave

Miami, FL 33132

Telephone: 305-347-3221

St. Thomas University

16400 NW 32nd Ave

Miami, FL 33054

Telephone: 305-628-6546

Trinity International University

501 NE 1st Ave

Miami, FL 33101

Telephone: 305-577-4600

University of Miami

Coral Gables, FL 33124

Telephone: 305-284-4323

Broward Community College

225 E. Las Olas Blvd

Fort Lauderdale, 33301

Telephone: 305-761-7400

Hillsborough Community College

PO Box 31127

Tampa, FL 33631

Telephone: 813-879-7222

University of Florida

Gainesville, FL 32611

Mike Olexa

Telephone: 352-392-2297

University of Central Florida

Orlando, FL 32816

Telephone: 407-823-3000

University of South Florida

4202 E. Fowler Ave

Tampa, FL 33620

Telephone: 813-974-3350
Civil Rights Outreach Plan

Federal Order Reform

Atlanta Market Administrator Office

7

List of Contacts

Local Cooperatives

Larry Hale

Arkansas Dairy Cooperative

PO Box 507

Damascus, AR 72039

Telephone: 501-335-7204

 Fax: 501-335-7705

George Jung

Southeast Milk, Inc.

PO Box 3790

Belleview, FL 34421

Telephone: 352-245-2437

 Fax: 352-245-9434
CIVIL RIGHTS OUTREACH PLAN

Federal Order No. 1, New England Marketing Area

Boston, Massachusetts

Targeted Audience: All dairy producers including Hispanic, Black, American Indian, and Asian

dairy producers, female dairy producers, and disabled dairy producers.

Purpose: The purpose of this outreach plan is to educate all dairy producers, including

minority dairy producers on the contents of the final rule in order to ensure

effective participation by all in the referendum process.

Plan:

This office is making plans to ensure that all dairy farmers in New England

are aware of the numerous opportunities we offer to gain knowledge

regarding the final rule. Press releases will be issued with Web site addresses,

phone numbers, and contact people in order to facilitate access to information

on the final rule. Dairy farmers will be encouraged to participate in outreach

educational meetings that we are organizing jointly with the producer, state,

government, and educational organizations in New England.

Actions taken by the staff at this office have resulted in no discovery of

organizations or publications specifically servicing minority dairy farmers in

the New England area. (Vermont Rural & Farm Family Vocational

Rehabilitation has serviced dairy farmers who are connected with a dairy

cooperative, agricultural extension, or both.) Outreach planners and meeting

organizers will take efforts to identify and satisfy any individual needs such

as physical accommodations for disability, language translations, and

scheduling around religious observances. Our ability to gain access to every

dairy farmer in New England through the agricultural network and dairy

organizations in New England will ensure that all dairy farmers will have

access to final rule information.

Activities in Process Attached
-2-

CIVIL RIGHTS OUTREACH PLAN

Activities in Process

Activities:

Press Releases

ß Farm Connection – issues a publication in Vermont that reaches farmers with

alternative views.

ß Rural Vermont – issues a publication directed to farmers and others interested in

rural economic development and related studies.

ß Market Administrator’s Review – provides information for nonmember producers

ß Cooperative Publications – provide information for member producers

ß State Department of Food & Agriculture bulletins and reports – provide local

agricultural news for subscribers

ß Other publications – over 30 local/regional publications that cover agricultural

news of interest to subscribers

ß Radio Station WDEV – broadcasting from Waterbury, VT

Educational and Outreach Meetings

ß New England Producer Handler Association (April 1999)

ß New Hampshire – Vermont Milk Marketing Study Group

ß WIFE – Women in Farm Economics, VT/NH

ß Meetings jointly sponsored by this office with dairy cooperatives, State Farm

Bureaus, and State Departments of Agriculture will be held in May/June in the

following states:

Connecticut (2 meetings)

Maine (2 meetings)

Massachusetts (2 meetings)

New Hampshire (1 meeting, May 1999)

Vermont (3 meetings)
CIVIL RIGHTS OUTREACH PLAN

Carrollton Market Administrator Office

Targeted

Audiences: Hispanic, Black, American Indian and Asian dairy producers, female dairy

producers, and disabled dairy producers.

Purpose: The purpose of this outreach plan is to educate minority dairy producers on the

contents of the final rule to ensure effective participation in the referendum

process.

Actions:

! Link MA website to Dairy Programs website that will contain

informational materials on the final rule in Spanish and maintain printed

copies of the Spanish informational materials for dissemination as

requested.

! Contact Agriculture/Dairy Science Department at the following 1890 and

HACU Universities; Prairie View A&M, Texas A&M, Texas Tech and

New Mexico State to:

-provide informational packets on the final rule and explain where

to obtain more information

-schedule informational meetings to discuss final rule contents with

faculty and students

-obtain information/mailing list of targeted producers to send

informational materials

! Contact the Texas and New Mexico President of WIFE – Women Involved

In Farm Economics, Texas and New Mexico President of American

Agri-Women and the Texas A&M chapter of MANRRS – Minorities in

Agriculture, Natural Resource and Related Sciences to:

-schedule informational meetings to discuss final rule contents with

members

-submit information for state newsletter

-obtain information/mailing list of targeted producers to send

informational materials

! Contact Texas AgriAbility chapter to:

-submit information for state newsletter

-obtain information/mailing list of targeted producers to send

informational materials

! Contact Texas Dairy Women’s Association chapter to:

-provide informational packets on the final rule and explain where

to obtain more information

-schedule informational meetings to discuss final rule contents with

members
-2-

! Press release will be mailed to All Grade A milk producers located in the

states of New Mexico and Texas announcing publication of the final rule

and where to obtain information.

! Include on all announcements regarding meeting a contact person to make

special arrangements for any special accommodations.

Contacts:

Prairie View A&M University

Dr. Linda Williams-Willis - Administrator

Cooperative Extension Program

P.O. Box 3059

Prairie View, Texas 77446-3059

Phone (409) 857-4051

Prairie View A&M University

Dr. Alfred L. Parks – Research Director

P.O. Box 4079

Prairie View, Texas 77446-4079

Phone (409) 857-2030

Texas A&M University

Dr. Robert Schwart – Extension Dairy Economist

Ag Economics Dept

Rm 458 Blocker Bldg

College Station, TX 77843-2124

Phone (409) 845-5284

Texas A&M University

Dr. Ellen Jorden – Extension Dairy Specialist

17360 Coit Rd

Dallas, TX 75252

Phone (972) 231-5362

Texas A&M University

Dr. Sandy Stokes – Extension Dairy Specialist

Rt 2 Box 1

Stephenville, TX 76401

Phone (254) 968-4144
-3-

Texas A&M University

Dr. Alfred Gonzalez – Extension Agent - Dairy 

1030 North Zaragosa, Suite A

El Paso, TX 79907

Phone (915) 859-7973

Texas Tech University

Dr. Kevin Pond – Chairperson

Department of Animal Science and Food Technology

P.O. Box 42123

Lubbock, TX 79409-2123

Phone (806) 742-2505

New Mexico State University

Dr. Bobby Rankin – Department Head

Department of Animal and Range Sciences

P.O. Box 30003, Campus Box 3I

Las Cruces, NM 88003-0003

Phone (505) 646-5279

WIFE – Women Involved In Farm Economics

Tammy Pompeo

P.O. Box 17

Animas, NM 88020

Phone (505) 548-2644

WIFE – Women Involved In Farm Economics

Janinne Brooks

RR 2 Box 11

Silverton, TX 79257

Phone (806) 847-2559

Agri-Women - Texas Agri-Women

Denise Rhodes

3705 Liberty Street

Austin, TX 78705

Agri-Women - New Mexico Cow Belles

Martha Coody

Box 247

Alamogordo, NM 88310
-4-

MANRRS – Minorities in Agriculture, Natural Resource and Related Sciences

Statia Singleton – Region IV VP

P.O. Box 921

College Station, TX 77841

Phone (409) 847-4108

Texas AgrAbility Project

Brian Shaw

Department of Ag Engineering

303 Scoates Hall

College Station, TX 77834-2121

Phone (409) 845-9793

Texas Dairy Women’s Association

Peggy Van Zandt

Rt 1 Box 39

Grandview, TX 76050
CIVIL RIGHTS OUTREACH PLAN

Chicago Regional and Indiana Market Administrator Office

Targeted

Audiences: Hispanic, Black, American Indian and Asian dairy producers, female dairy producers, and disabled dairy

producers.

Purpose: The purpose of this outreach plan is to educate minority dairy producers on the contents of the final rule to

ensure effective participation in the referendum process.

Actions:

Link MA website to Dairy Programs website which will contain informational materials on the final rule in

Spanish and maintain printed copies of the Spanish informational materials for dissemination as

requested.

Contact Agriculture/Dairy Science Department at the following 1890, HACU or Tribal Universities to:

 - schedule informational meetings to discuss final rule contents with faculty and students

 - obtain information/mailing lists of targeted producers to send informational materials

Contact will be made within two weeks of publication of the final rule. Coordination for informational

meetings will be conducted with all schools or parties stating an interest.

Universities include:

Tribal Universities

College of the Menominee Nation - Keshena, WI

Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwa Community College - Hayward, WI

HACU Universities

Illinois

Harry S. Truman College, City Colleges of Chicago - Chicago, IL

Lexington Institute of Hospitality Careers - Chicago, IL

MacCormac Junior College - Chicago, IL

Malcolm X College, City Colleges of Chicago - Chicago, IL

Morton College - Cicero, IL

Richard J. Daley College - Chicago, IL

Robert Morris College - Chicago, IL

St. Augustine College - Chicago, IL

Waubonsee Community College Sugar Grove, IL

Wilbur Wright College - Chicago, IL

Northeastern Illinois University - Chicago, IL

University of Illinois at Chicago - Chicago, IL

Indiana

Purdue University Calumet - Hammond, IN

Wisconsin

Milwaukee Area Technical College - Milwaukee, WI
CIVIL RIGHTS OUTREACH PLAN Page 2

Identify and contact local chapters of American Agri-Women, MANRRS-Minorities in Agriculture, Natural

Resource and Related Sciences to:

 - schedule informational meetings to discuss final rule contents with members

 - submit information for local newsletter

 - obtain information/mailing lists of targeted producers to send informational materials

Chapters include:

American Agri-Women

Audrey Sickinger, Wisconsin Women in Agriculture

MANRRS

Mattie Grant, National Student President

West Lafayette, IN

Kyle Jemison, National Graduate Representative

Champaign/Urbana, IL

Identify and contact state AgrAbility chapters (programs for Farmers with Disabilities) to:

 - submit information for state newsletter

 - obtain information/mailing lists of targeted producers to send informational materials

Chapters include:

Illinois AgrAbility Project (AgrAbility Unlimited)

Indiana AgrAbility Project

Identify and contact any minority agriculture organizations that are having national/regional meetings in our

marketing area to:

 - obtain speaking opportunity

 - provide information for distribution to participants

 - obtain information/mailing lists of targeted producers

Work with local extension agents to organize meetings targeted to minorities regarding the final rule. 

Contact state-wide agents to gather and disseminate information in order to effectively target

information to these local agents and target minorities. 

State-wide agents include the following:

Dr. Dennis R. Campion, Interim Director

Cooperative Extension Service

Meat and Animal Sciences

University of Illinois

Dr. Henry A. Wadsworth, Director

Cooperative Extension Service

Agricultural Economics

Purdue University

Dr. Carl W. O=Connor, Director

Cooperative Extension Service

Agricultural Economics

University of Wisconsin
CIVIL RIGHTS OUTREACH PLAN Page 3

Identify local minority targeted media and submit information for publication.

Media include:

Chicago Defender - Chicago, IL

Chicago Hispanic News - Chicago, IL

Chinese American News - Chicago, IL

India Post - Chicago, IL 

La Raza - Chicago, IL

La Ola Latino American - Indianapolis, IN

La Nacion - Madison, WI

Spanish Center - Milwaukee, WI

Contact local cooperatives and obtain any information or mailing lists that may assist in contacting minority

producers.

Identify and include on our interested party data base target audience parties.

Disseminate to interested parties all information, notices and material concerning final rule in a timely and

appropriate manner.

Schedule five Order Consolidation Final Rule Handler Informational Meetings from

April 19, 1999 through May 7, 1999 to be held at various locations throughout the orders. Special

attempts will be made to identify and target minority groups for notice of these meetings.

Attend the Wisconsin Cheese Industry meeting on April 13-14, 1999 to discuss the final rule.

Schedule informational meetings to discuss final rule contents with organizations and parties that express an

interest. During the proposed rule stage our office conducted in excess of twenty of these sessions to

interested parties.

Assignment of a staff member to research and identify other outreach efforts to ensure that minority dairy

producers have received information regarding the final rule.

Include on all announcements regarding meetings a contact person to make arrangements for any special

accommodations.

Ensure all meeting space is accessible.
Tribal Universities

Lac Courte Orielles Ojibwa Community College

Dr. Tom Davis, President

R.R. 2, Box 2357

Hayward, WI 54843

Phone: 715-634-4790 x134 Fax: 715-634-5049

email: tomdavis@lco-college.edu

College of the Menominee Nation

Dr. Verna Fowler, President

P.O. Box 1179

Keshena, WI 54135

Phone: 715-799-4921 Fax: 715-799-1308

http://www.menominee.com email: vfowler@menominee.com

HACU Universities

Illinois

Harry S. Truman College, City Colleges of Chicago

1145 W. Wilson Ave.

Chicago, IL 

Phone: 878-1700

Lexington Institute of Hospitality Careers

10840 S. Western Ave.

Chicago, IL

Phone: 779-3800

MacCormac Junior College

506 S. Wabash Ave.

Chicago, IL 60605

Malcolm X College, City Colleges of Chicago

1900 W. Van Buren St.

Chicago, IL

Phone: 850-7006

Morton College

3801 S. Central

Cicero, IL 60650

Phone: 708-656-8000

Northeastern Illinois University

5500 N. St. Louis Ave.

Chicago, IL

Phone: 583-4050

Richard J. Daley College

7500 S. Pulaski Ave.

Chicago, IL

Phone: 838-7500

Robert Morris College

180 N. LaSalle

Chicago, IL

Phone: 836-4608
CONTACT LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS Page 2

St. Augustine College

3255 W. Armitage Ave.

Chicago, IL

Phone: 276-9169

University of Illinois at Chicago

Chicago, IL 60612

Phone: 312-996-7000

Waubonsee Community College

4S783 Rt. 47

Sugar Grove, IL 60554

Phone: 630-892-3334

Wilbur Wright College

4300 N. Narragansett

Chicago, IL

Phone: 847-777-7900

Indiana

Purdue University Calumet

2253 171st Street

Hammond, IN

Phone: 708-862-5690

Wisconsin

Milwaukee Area Technical College

700 W. State St.

Milwaukee, WI 53233

Phone: 414-297-7900

American Agri-Women

Audrey Sickinger

Wisconsin Women in Agriculture

5014 Highway G

Reedsville, WI 54230

MANRRS

Undergraduate Student Officers

Maggie Grant

National Student President

3165 Pheasant Run Dr. Apt. #534

West Lafayette, IN 47905

Phone: 765-471-1570

email: kilog@expert.cc.purdue.edu

Executive Committee Officers

Kyle Jemison

National Graduate Representative

University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign

Phone: 217-244-1680

email: jemison@uiuc.edu
CONTACT LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS Page 3

AgrAbility

Illinois AgrAbility Project (AgrAbility Unlimited)

Robert A. Aherin

Phone: 217-333-9417

email: raa@sugar.age.uiuc.edu

Chip Petrea

Phone: 217-333-5035

email: rcp@sugar.age.uiuc.edu

AgrAbility Unlimited

University of Illinois

Dept. of Agricultural Engineering

1304 W. Pennsylvania Ave.

Urbana, IL 61801

Fax: 217-244-0323

Duane Brusnighan

Phone: TDD/TTY: 217-525-0398 Fax: 217-525-0442

Phone: 800-525-0067 (IL Only)

email: brusnighand@idea.ag.uiuc.edu

AgrAbility Unlimited

Illinois Eastern Seal Society

2715 South Fourth Street

P.O. Box 1767

Springfield, IL 62705

Indiana AgrAbility Project

Ned Stoller

Phone: TDD/TTY: 765-494-5088

email: stoller@ecn.purdue.edu

AgrAbility Project

Breaking New Ground Resource Center

1146 ABE Building

West Lafayette, IN 47907-1146

Fax: 765-496-1356

Al Tolbert

Phone: 812-277-9626 Fax: 812-277-9628

TDD/TTY: 812-277-9627

Phone: 800-845-6914 (IN Only)

email: sicil@tima.com

Indiana AgrAbility Project

Southern Indiana Center for Independent Living

Stone City Mall

3300 West 16th Street

Bedford, IN 47421

Ed Bell

Phone: 765-489-5753 Fax: 765-489-6136

email: edbell@infocom.com

Indiana AgrAbility Project

Southern Indiana Center for Independent Living

16447 State Road 38

Hagerstown, IN 47346
CONTACT LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS Page 4

State-Wide Extension Agents

Illinois

Dr. Dennis R. Campion, Interim Director

Cooperative Extension Service

Meat and Animal Sciences

University of Illinois

123 Mumford Hall, 1301 West Gregory Drive

Urbana, IL 61801

Phone: 217-333-5900 Fax: 217-244-5403

email: dcampion@uiuc.edu

Indiana

Dr. Henry A. Wadsworth, Director

Cooperative Extension Service

Agricultural Economics

Purdue University

1140 Agriculture Admin. Bldg.

West Lafayette, IN 47907-1140

Phone: 765-494-8489 Fax: 765-494-5876

email: haw@ces.purdue.edu

Wisconsin

Dr. Carl W. O

=Connor, Director

Cooperative Extension Service

Agricultural Economics

University of Wisconsin

432 N. Lake Street, Room 601, Extension Bldg.

Madison, WI 53706-1498

Phone: 608-263-2775 Fax: 608-265-4545

email: carl.oconnor@ces.uwex.edu
CONTACT LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS Page 5

Local Minority Targeted Media

Illinois

Chicago Defender

2400 S. Michigan Ave.

Chicago, IL

Phone 312-225-2400

Chicago Hispanic News

2600 W. Peterson Ave.

Chicago, IL

Phone: 773-262-2800

La Raza

3960 W. 26th St.

Chicago, IL 

Phone: 773-525-1763

Chinese American News

2166 S. Archer Ave.

Chicago, IL

Phone: 312-225-5600

India Post

311 W. Washington

Chicago, IL

Phone: 773-973-7394

Indiana

La Ola Latino American

2401 W. Washington St. Floor 1

Indianapolis, IN

Phone: 317-822-8345

Wisconsin

La Nacion

3 S. Pinckney

Madison, WI

Phone: 608-256-8641

The Spanish Center

614 W. National Ave.

Milwaukee, WI

Phone: 414-384-3700
CIVIL RIGHTS OUTREACH PLAN

Cleveland, Ohio Market Administrator Office

Targeted

Audiences: Hispanic, Black, American Indian and Asian dairy producers, female dairy producers,

and disabled dairy producers.

Purpose: The purpose of this outreach plan is to educate minority dairy producers on the

contents of the final rule to ensure effective participation in the referendum process.

Actions:

C Link MA website to Dairy Programs website which will contain informational

materials on the final rule in Spanish and maintain printed copies of the Spanish

informational materials for dissemination as requested.

C The “Interested Parties” mailing list maintained at the Cleveland office contains

515 entities from corporations to individuals who will receive information

concerning the final rule. The list includes all cooperatives that represent dairy

farmers shipping to regulated plants covered by the final rule.

This office maintains a data base containing the names and addresses of all non

member milk producers. Last month that list contained 3,003 dairy farmers who

received a postcard of their monthly component tests and the “Market 

Administrator’s Bulletin” which contains market information. None of the 3,003

items were returned, so we know the addresses are good.

When the final rule is announced all interested parties, handlers, cooperatives, and

non member producers will be notified. We feel we have 100 percent coverage for

the producers which includes all minorities.

C Enclosed is a list of universities, publications, county agents, and state agencies that

are on the “Interested Parties” list at this time. All of the Hispanic Serving

Institutions and State WIFE Presidents within the proposed Mideast order area will

be added to our mailing list immediately.

C The publication date of the final rule is unknown; therefore, specific dates for

meetings cannot be given at this time. However, the Extension Services,

Universities of Michigan, Ohio, and Western Pennsylvania have been contacted

regarding our availability to participate in meetings they may wish to hold. 

Handlers receiving milk from non members have also told us that they will host

producer meetings which we will attend. All minorities will have equal access to

these meetings.

The dates will not be set until the publication date of the final rule is announced.




CIVIL RIGHTS OUTREACH PLAN

Kansas City Market Administrator Office

Targeted

Audiences: Hispanic, Black, American Indian, and Asian dairy producers, female

dairy producers, and disabled dairy producers.

Purpose: The purpose of this outreach plan is to educate minority dairy producers

on the contents of the final rule to ensure effective participation in the 

referendum process.

Actions:

! Link MA website to Dairy Programs website which will contain

 informational materials on the final rule in Spanish and maintain

printed copies of the Spanish informational materials for dissemination 

as requested.

! Contact Agriculture/Dairy Science Departments at the following 1890,

HACU, or Tribal Universities: 

Cheyenne River Community College Haskell Indian Nations University

Mike McCafferty, President Dr. Bob Martin, President

P. O. Box 220 155 Indian Avenue, Box 5030

Eagle Butte, SD 57625 Lawrence, KS 66046-4800

Little Priest Tribal College Nebraska Indian Community College

John Blackhawk, President Schuyler Houser, President

P. O. Box 270 P. O. Box 164

Winebago, NE 68071 Niobrara, NE 68760

Oglala Lakota College Sinte Gleska University

Thomas Shortbull, President Dr. Lionel Bordeaux, President

P. O. Box 490 P. O. Box 490

Klye, SD 57752 Rosebud, SD 57570

Sisseton Wahpeton Community College

Elden Lawrence, President

P. O. Box 689

Sisseton, SD 57262

to: -obtain information/mailing lists of targeted producers to send informational 

materials.
! Contact local chapters of WIFE-Women Involved In Farm Economics, 

Agri-Women, MANRRS-Minorities in Agriculture, Natural Resource 

and Related Sciences:

Ina Selfridge (Elmer) Cynthia Thomsen

HC 2 Box 52 2304 RD 3

Burdett, KS 67523-9107 Excter, NE 68935

Marie Harvey (Arlen) Kathy Herdt (Galen)

34600 213 St. R R 1 Box 195

Ree Heights, SD 57371 Veteran, WY 82243

Marcie Jacobsen Bonnie Phifer

Women of National Ag Aviation Salers Belles

RR 2 Box 56A RR 1 Box 17

Letcher, SD 57359 Mason City, NE 68855

Charles Stewart, JR

Region V VP

Westgate 205A Cook

Ames, IA 50012

to: -submit information for local newsletter.

-obtain information/mailing lists of targeted producers to send informational

 materials.

! Contact state AgrAbility chapters (program for Farmers with Disabilities): 

Iowa AgrAbility Project Iowa AgrAbility Project

ISU, Dept of Human Development The Easter Seal Society of Iowa, Inc.

 & Family Studies FaRM Program

62 LeBaron Hall 401 N. E. 66th Avenue

Ames, IA 50011 P.O. Box 4002

Des Moines, IA 50333

Easter Seal Society of Nebraska

2727 West 2nd Street #470 University of NE, Biol Sys Engr Dept

Hastings, NE 68901-4608 204 L W Chase Hall

 Lincoln, NE 68583-0726

Easter Seal Society of 

 South Dakota, Inc. South Dakota AgrAbility Project

1351 North Harrison Avenue McKennan Hospital 

 Pierre, SD 57501-5879 800 East 21 Street, P.O. Box 5045

 Sioux Falls, SD 57117-5045 

South Dakota University 

AE 107, Box 2120 North Campus Drive 

Brookings, SD 57001-4917 
to: -submit information for state newsletter.

-obtain information/mailing list of targeted producers to send informational

materials.

! Identify local minority targeted media and submit information for 

publication:

Dos Mundos

Bilingual Newspaper

902 S.W. Blvd

Kansas City, MO 64108

! Contact local cooperatives and obtain any information or mailing lists that

may assist in contacting minority producers.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

DAIRY PROGRAMS

 MARKET ADMINISTRATOR

CAROLINA 4511 Bardstown Road, Suite 103

MARKETING AREA Louisville, Kentucky 40218-4001

Federal Order No. 5

P. O. Box 18030

LOUISVILLE-LEXINGTON-EVANSVILLE Louisville, Kentucky 40261-0030

MARKETING AREA

Federal Order No. 46 Phone: 502-499-0040

Fax: 502-499-8749

CIVIL RIGHTS OUTREACH PLAN

LOUISVILLE MARKET ADMINISTRATOR OFFICE

Targeted

Audiences: Hispanic, Black, American Indian and Asian dairy producers, female dairy

producers, and disabled dairy producers.

Purpose: The purpose of this outreach plan is to educate minority dairy producers 

on the contents of the final rule to ensure effective participation in the 

referendum process.

Actions:

q Link MA Website to Dairy Programs website, which will contain

informational materials on the final rule in Spanish and maintain printed

copies of the Spanish informational materials for dissemination as

requested.

q Contact Agriculture/Dairy Science Department at the following 1890, HACU

or Tribal Universities to obtain information to:

• Schedule informational meetings to discuss final rule contents with

faculty and students

• 0btain information and/or mailing lists of targeted producers to send

informational materials to as required.

Kentucky State University

Dr. Harold R. Benson, Research Director

Frankfort, KY 40601 

Phone: 502-277-6310 Fax: 502-227-5933

E-Mail: hbenson@gwmail.kysu.edu

North Carolina A&T State University

Dr. Daniel Godfrey, Research Director

Greensboro, NC 27411

Phone: 336-334-7979 Fax: 336-334-7580

E-Mail: danield@ncat.edu
2

South Carolina State University

Dr. Oscar P. Butler, Jr., Research Director

Orangeburg, SC 29117 

Phone: 803-536-8229 Fax: 803-536-7102

E-Mail: zs_opbutler@scsu.edu

Tennessee State University

Dr. Stephen H. Kolison, Jr., Research Director

Nashville, TN 37209

Phone: 615-963-5761 Fax: 615-963-5532

E-Mail: skolison@picard.tnstae.edu

Virginia State University

Dr. Winfrey S. Clarke, Research Director

Petersburg, VA 23803

Phone: 804-524-5151 Fax: 804-524-5950

E-Mail: vsuarsm@aol.com

American Indian Higher Education Consortium

121 Oronoco Street

Alexandria, VA 22314

Phone: 703-838-0400 Fax: 703-838-0388

E-Mail: aihec@aihec.org

q Contact local chapters of WIFE - Women Involved in Farm Economics,

Agri-Women, MANRRS - Minorities in Agriculture, Natural Resource and

Related Sciences to:

• Schedule informational meetings to discuss final rule contents with

members 

• Submit information for local newsletter

• Obtain information/mailing lists of targeted producers to send

informational materials

WIFE President (South Carolina):

Tammy Smith (David)

P.O. Box 231

Elgin, SC 29045

MANRRS Executive Committee National President

Curtis White (Clemson University)

Phone: 864-656-3300

E-Mail: cdwhite@clemson.edu
3

q Contact Kentucky AgrAbility chapter (program for Farmers with

Disabilities) to:

• Submit information for state newsletter

• Obtain information/mailing list of targeted producers to send 

informational materials

Kentucky Agrability Chapter

University of Kentucky, Agricultural Programs

304 w. p. Garrigus Building

Lexington, KY 40546

Phone: 800-333-2814 Fax: 606-323-1991

John Hancock

E-Mail: jhancock@ca.uky.edu

Madison Gates

E-Mail: mgates@ca.uky.edu

Eileen Griffin

E-Mail: emgriffin@ca.uky.edu

q Identify and contact any minority agriculture organizations that are

having national/regional meetings in our area to:

• Obtain speaking opportunity's

• Provide information for distribution to participants

q Contact local cooperatives and obtain any information or mailing lists

that may assist in contacting minority producers. 

q Include on all announcements regarding meetings a contact person to

make arrangements for any special accommodations.
CIVIL RIGHTS OUTREACH PLAN

Minneapolis Market Administrator’s Office

Targeted

Audiences: Hispanic, Black, American Indian and Asian dairy producers, female dairy producers,

and disabled dairy producers.

Purpose: The purpose of this outreach plan is to educate minority dairy producers on the

contents of the final rule to ensure effective participation in the referendum process.

Actions:

C Link our website to Dairy Programs website which will contain informational

materials on the final rule in Spanish and maintain printed copies of the Spanish

informational materials for dissemination as requested.

C Contact Agriculture/Dairy Science Department at the following 1890, HACU or

Tribal Universities to:

C schedule informational meetings to discuss final rule contents with

faculty and students.

C obtain information/mailing lists of targeted producers to send

informational materials.

Cankdeska Cikana Community College

Erich Longie, President

P O Box 269

Fort Totten ND 58335

Cheyenne River Community College

Mike McCafferty, President

P O Box 220

Eagle Butte SD 57625

College of the Menominee Nation

Dr. Verna Fowler, President

P O Box 1179

Keshena WI 54135

Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College

Lester Jack Briggs, President

2101 14th Street

Cloquet MN 55720-2964

Fort Berthold Community College

Elizabeth Yellowbird Demeray, President

P O Box 490

New Town ND 58763
-2-

Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwa Community College

Dr. Tom Davis, President

R. R. 2, Box 2357

Hayward WI 54843

Leech Lake Tribal College

Larry Aitken, President

Route 3, Box 100

Cass Lake MN 56633

Oglala Lakota College

Thomas Shortbull, President

P O Box 490

Kyle SD 57752

Sinte Gleska University

Dr. Lionel Bordeaux, President

P O Box 490

Rosebud SD 57570

Sisseton Sahpeton Community College

Elden Lawrence, President

P O Box 689

Sisseton SD 57262

Sitting Bull College

Ron McNeil, President

HCI Box 4

Fort Yates ND 58338

Turtle Mountain Community College

Dr. Carty Monette, President

P O Box 340

Belcourt ND 58316

United Tribes Technical College

Dr. David Gipp, President

3315 University Drive

Bismarck ND 58504

White Earth Tribal and Community College

Dr. Helen Klassen

202 Main Street South

P O Box 478

Mahnomen MN 56557
-3-

Dr. Jerry Hammond

University of Minnesota

Dept of Ag & Applied Economics

1994 Buford Ave, 231 COB, Room 218c

St. Paul MN 55108

Dr. John Parsons

Dept. Head, Dairy Science

South Dakota State University

Box 2104

Brookings SD 57007

 

C Contact local chapters of WIFE - Women Involved in Farm Economics, AgriWomen, MANRRS - Minorities in Agriculture, Natural Resource and Related

Sciences to:

C schedule informational meetings to discuss final rule contents with

members.

C submit information for local newsletter

C obtain information/mailing lists of targeted producers to send

informational materials.

Roberta Skow (Keith)

4230 110th Ave SW

Byron MN 55920

Mary Ann Unruh

2009 Prairie Oak Drive

Hebron ND 58638

Marie Harvey (Arlen)

34600 213 St

Ree Heights SD 57371

Sheila Massey (Randy)

P O Box 70

Animas NM 88020

Ruth Laribee

RD 1, Box 263

Lowville NY 13367

Jean Meyer

North Dakota Agri-Women

5125 49th Avenue NE

York ND 58386
-4-

Audrey Sickinger

Wisconsin Women in Agriculture

5014 Highway G

Reedsville WI 54230

Charles Stewart, Jr.

MANRRS, Region V VP

Westgate 205A Cook

Ames IA 50012

C Contact the state AgrAbility chapter (program for Farmers with Disabilities) to

C submit information for the state newsletters.

C obtain information/mailing list of targeted producers to send

informational materials from:

John Schutske

1390 Eckles Avenue 205 AGEN Dept

University of Minnesota

St. Paul MN 55108

Iowa AgrAbility Project

ISU, Dept of Human Development & Family Studies

62 LeBaron Hall

Ames IA 50011

NDSU Extension Agricultural Engineering

1221 West College Street

P O Box 5626

Fargo ND 58105

Eastern Seal Society of South Dakota, Inc.

1351 North Harrison Avenue

Pierre SD 57501-5879

AgrAbility of Wisconsin

University of WI - Madison

460 Henry Mall, AGEN Dept

Madison WI 53706

C Local extension agents in Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and

Wisconsin will be contacted to organize meetings targeted to minorities and farmers

with disabilities regarding the final rule. 

C Identify local minority targeted media and submit information for publication.

The Circle

1530 E. Franklin 

Minneapolis MN 55404
-5-

C Contact local cooperatives and obtain any information or mailing lists that may assist

in contacting minority producers and farmers with disabilities.

C We will include information on all announcements regarding meetings a contact

person to make arrangements for any special accommodations. We will also advise

all of the above contacts that we are available to provide services for anyone

interested in the final rule presentation.
CIVIL RIGHTS OUTREACH PLAN

Office of the Milk Market Administrator

Phoenix, Arizona

Target Audience: Hispanic, African-American, Native American, Asian-American, Female,

and disabled dairy producers.

Purpose: To ensure the effective participation of minority dairy producers in the

federal order referendum by process by educating minority dairy producers

on the contents of the final rule.

Actions: * Link the MA website to the Dairy Programs website which will contain

informational materials on the final rule in Spanish. 

* Disseminate, upon request, informational materials printed in Spanish.

* Contact the Dairy Science Department at the following 1890, HACU, or

Tribal Universities to make the MA office available to attend informational

meetings on the contents of the final rule and to obtain mailing lists of

targeted producers.

ARIZONA

Arizona State University Tempe

Arizona Western College Yuma

Central Arizona College Coolidge

Cochise College Douglas

Northern Arizona University Flagstaff

Pima County Community College Tucson

South Mountain Community College Phoenix

University of Arizona Tucson

COLORADO

Adams State College Alamosa

Colorado State University Fort Collins

Community College of Denver Denver

Metropolitan State College of Denver Denver

Otero Junior College La Junta

Pueblo Community College Pueblo

Trinidad State Junior College Trinidad

University of Southern Colorado Pueblo
CIVIL RIGHTS OUTREACH PLAN

Office of the Market Administrator

Phoenix, AZ

Page 2

* Contact local chapters of WIFE-Women Involved in Farm Economics,

Agri-Women, MANRRS- Minorities in Agriculture, Natural Resource and

Related Sciences to make the MA office available to attend informational

meetings on the contents of the final rule, to obtain mailing lists of targeted

producers, and to submit requested information for organizational

newsletters.

ARIZONA

Presidents of American Agri-Women Litchfield Park

COLORADO

WIFE State President Towner

* Contact state AgrAbility chapters (programs for Farmers with Disabilities)

to make the MA office available to attend informational meetings on the

contents of the final rule, to obtain mailing lists of targeted producers, and

to submit requested information for organizational newsletters.

COLORADO

Colorado AgrAbility Project Lakewood

Colorado AgrAbility Project Fort Collins

* Work with local extension agents, as requested, to help organize final rule 

informational meetings targeted at minority dairy producers.

University of Arizona

Colorado State University

Utah State University

* Contact milk marketing cooperatives to obtain any information or mailing

lists that may assist in contacting minority producers.

* Include the name of a contact person to make arrangements for special

accommodations on all announcements regarding meetings.

* Identify local media targeted at minority audiences and submit information

on the final rule for publication.

* Provide information and assistance regarding the final rule to all interested

persons not listed above that contact the MA office.
CIVIL RIGHTS OUTREACH PLAN

Seattle Market Administrator Office

Targeted

Audiences: Hispanic, Black, American Indian and Asian dairy producers, female dairy

producers, and disabled dairy producers.

Purpose: The purpose of this outreach plan is to educate minority dairy producers on the

contents of the final rule to ensure effective participation in the referendum

process.

Actions: Under our website's FO Reform Heading, we will explain that the final rule is

available in Spanish, and we will link our MA website to the Dairy Programs

website which will contain informational materials on the final rule in

Spanish.

We will contact the Agriculture/Dairy Science Departments at the following

Colleges/Universities to schedule informational meetings, at their request, to

discuss final rule contents with faculty and students. We will obtain

information/mailing lists they have available of targeted producers to send

informational materials.

Member colleges of the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities in:

Washington

Heritage College, Toppenish

California

Allan Hancock College, Santa Monica

California State University, System Office, Long Beach

California State University, Bakersfield

California State University, (Dominguez Hills) Carson

California State University, Fresno

California State University, Los Angeles

California State University, (Monterey Bay) Seaside

California State University, San Bernardino; Cerritos Community College

District, Norwalk

Chaffey College, Ranco Cucamanga

Charles R. Drew University of Medicine & Science, Los Angeles

Citrus College, Glendora

College of the Sequoias, Visalia

Compton Community College, Compton

Don Bosco Technical Institute, Rosemead

East Los Angeles College (Monterey Park), Los Angeles
2

Fresno City College, Fresno

Fullerton College, Fullerton

Gavilan Community College, Gilroy

Hartnell Community College District, Salinas

Imperial Valley College, Imperial

Reedley College, Reedley

Long Beach Community College District, Long Beach

Los Angeles City College, Los Angeles

Los Angeles Community College District, Los Angeles

Los Angeles Harbor College, Wilmington

Los Angeles Mission College, Sylmar

Los Angeles Trade-Technical College, Los Angeles

Los Angeles Valley College, Van Nuys

Merced College, Merced

Modesto Junior College, Modesto

Mount St. Mary's College, Los Angeles

Mount San Antonio College, Walnut Creek

National Hispanic University, San Jose

Oxnard College, Oxnard

Palo Verde College, Blythe

Pasadena City College, Pasadena

Porterville College, Porterville

Rancho Santiago Community College District, Santa Ana

Rio Hondo Community College, Whittier

Riverside Community College District, Riverside

San Bernardino Community College District, San Bernardino

San Bernardino Valley College, San Bernardino

San Diego State University, (Imperial Valley) Calexico

Santa Barbara City College, Santa Barbara

Southwestern Community College District, Chula Vista

West Hills Community College, Coalinga

Woodbury University, Burbank

Associate Members/California

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo;

California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

California State University, Chico

California State University, Fullerton

California State University, Hayward

California State University, Northridge

California State University, Sacramento

California State University, San Marcos

Crafton Hills College, Yucaipa

Long Beach City College, Long Beach
3

National University, La Jolla

San Diego State University, San Diego

San Francisco State University, San Francisco

San Jose State University, San Jose

Santa Monica Community College, Santa Monica

University of California, Berkeley

UCLA, Los Angeles

University of California, San Diego, La Jolla

University of California, Santa Cruz

Also Tribal Colleges/Universities

California

D-Q University, Davis, California

Montana

Blackfeet Community College, Browning, Montana

Dull Knife Memorial College, Lame Deer, Montana

Fort Belknap College, Harlem, Montana

Fort Peck Community College, Poplar, Montana

Little Big Horn College, Crow Agency, Montana

Salish Kootenai College, Pablo, Montana

Stone Child College, Box Elder, Montana

Washington

Northwest Indian College, Bellingham, Washington

We will contact the local chapters of Women Involved In Farm Economics,

Ms. Edwards, located in Opheim, Montana, and Ms. Robertson, in Olympia,

Washington; the affiliate presidents of Agri-Women, Ms. Cholewinski,

located in Eugene, Oregon, Ms. Einsmann, in Irvine, California, and Ms. Lou

Vik, in Cathlamet, Washington; and the Washington Women for Agriculture,

Ms. Argo, located in Sunnyside, Washington; and the regional vice president

of the minorities in Agriculture, Natural Resource and Related Sciences, Ms.

Cerda, in Davis, California, to schedule informational meetings, at their

request, to discuss final rule contents with members; to submit information

for local newsletters; and to obtain information/mailing lists they have

available of targeted producers to send informational materials.
4

We will contact the Montana/Idaho AgrAbility Project chapters located in

Moscow, Idaho, Pocatello, Idaho, and Great Falls, Montana, to submit

information for their state newsletters. We will also obtain

information/mailing lists they have available of targeted producers to send

informational materials. 

We will also attempt to identify and contact any minority agricultural

organizations that are having national/regional meetings in our area to provide

information for distribution to participants and to offer a speaker from our

office for their program. 

We will work with local State University extension agents, Dr. W.R. Gomes,

Director, University of California, Oakland, California, Dr. LeRoy D. Luft,

Director, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, Dr. Lyla E. Houglum, Director,

Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, and Dr. James J. Zuiches,

Director, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, and dairy

organizations to organize meetings, if they request, targeted to minorities

regarding the final rule.

We will contact the following newspapers and local minority-targeted media to

submit information in Spanish and English for publication.

California

Californian, Bakersfield

Bee, Fresno, Modesto and Sacramento

Times, Los Angeles

Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, Ontario

Riverside Press-Enterprise, Riverside

Union Tribune, San Diego

Chronicle, San Francisco

Examiner, San Francisco

Index-Tribune, Sonoma

Contra Costa Times, Walnut Creek

Siskiyou Daily News, Yreka

Idaho

Idaho State Journal, Pocatello

Oregon

Capital Press, Salem
5

Washington

Columbia Basin Herald, Moses Lake

Hispanic Directory, Seattle

El Mundo, Seattle

We will contact the local cooperatives for assistance in obtaining information

or mailing lists that would help us in contacting minority producers.

We will include a contact person on all announcements regarding meetings to

make arrangements for any special accommodations needed by any attendees.

 
CIVIL RIGHTS OUTREACH PLAN

TULSA OKLAHOMA MARKET ADMINISTRATOR OFFICE

Targeted

Audiences: Hispanic, Black, American Indian and Asian dairy producers, female dairy

producers, and disabled dairy producers.

Purpose: The purpose of this outreach plan is to educate minority dairy producers

on the contents of the final rule to ensure effective participation in the

referendum process.

Actions:

♦ Link MA website to Dairy Programs website which will contain

informational materials on the final rule in Spanish and maintain

printed copies of the Spanish informational materials for dissemination

as requested.

♦ Contact Agriculture/Dairy Science Department at the following 1890

Universities (Lincoln University, Jefferson City, MO; Langston

University, Langston, OK) to:

-offer to schedule informational meetings to discuss final rule

contents with faculty and students

-obtain information/mailing lists of targeted producers to send

informational materials

♦ Contact local chapter of WIFE-Women Involved in Farm Economics,

Agri-Women (WIFE, Kansas Chapter, Burdett, KS) to:

-offer to schedule informational meetings to discuss final rule

contents with members

-submit information for local newsletter

-obtain information/mailing lists of targeted producers to send

informational materials

♦ Contact state AgrAbility chapter (University of Missouri, Missouri

AgrAbility Project) to:

-submit information for state newsletter

-obtain information/mailing list of targeted producers to send

informational materials

♦ Work with local extension agents to organize meetings targeted to

minorities regarding the final rule. (List agents, meeting agenda, and

publicity methods.)

1. Ken Bailey - Dairy Extension Economist, University of

Missouri
2

2. Dan Waldner – Extension Specialist, Dairy Science, Oklahoma

State University

3. John Smith – Extension Specialist, Dairy Science, Kansas State

4. Dick Dunham – Extension Specialist, Dairy Science, Kansas

State

5. Jodie Pennington – Extension Dairy Specialist, University of

Arkansas

6. Michael Hutjens – Extension Dairy Specialist, University of

Illinois

♦ Contact local cooperatives and obtain any information or mailing lists

that may assist in contacting minority producers.

♦ Include on all announcements regarding meetings a contact person to

make arrangements for any special accommodations.