The Bancroft Library supports research, teaching, scholarship, and creative endeavors involving the use of materials from our collections. We provide a variety of duplication and permission services to meet the needs of our researchers and loan to cultural institutions for exhibitions. Please see our Duplication Services page for more information.
For questions about orders, charges, or general customer service, please use one of these methods to contact us:
510-642-3781 (Administrative Office) banc-aeon@berkeley.edu
Delivery policy
Bancroft digital duplication requests are delivered via download only. Paper photocopies are delivered via pick-up or U.S. mail.
Cancellation policy
Researchers may cancel their requests for duplication and/or permission until payment has been received by The Bancroft Library. Once payment has been received, Bancroft staff process the request, including sending the material out to vendors to be digitized. A refund may be issued only in the event of a technical problem with the completed order (for example, corrupted digital file or torn photocopies). We regret that we cannot issue refunds if researchers decide that they no longer want or need the service. Please allow a minimum of 45 business days to complete all digital orders and permission requests.
How the Library and UC Berkeley protect your personal information
Please retain a copy of your transaction receipt, which will help us investigate and analyze any problems with a transaction, and expedite a resolution.
Place materials on the table. Do not put materials on the floor, on a chair, or on your lap.
Avoid leaning on materials or piling them up.
Do not bend, fold, or flatten materials. This is particularly important for maps and other oversize items.
Notify library staff if you see any evidence of insects or rodents, mildew, damp, unusual dirt, or deterioration.
Do not attempt to repair material yourself. If you see damage, please ask the Circulation or Reference Desk to send you an email with the link to the “Researcher Comment” form.
Bancroft staff reserves the right to advise proper use of materials at any time.
Due to preservation concerns, archival audiovisual materials must be digitized prior to use. Please consult with Bancroft staff about your options.
Be sure that containers are sitting straight on their bottom sides. Avoid tipping, jostling, dropping, or positioning containers on their end. All material must remain fully on the table at all times.
Do not use weakened or torn hand holes on containers.
Support folders with hands at both sides when removing them from the container to prevent the contents from spilling out. Do not place full folders on end.
Return one item at a time. Library staff will assist in delivering and returning all oversize items.
Align sheets within folders so that ends are not protruding beyond the protection of the folder.
Flat boxes should always be carried and used flat.
Never force open a book with a tight binding. Do not stack opened books or place them face down.
Avoid touching the surface of ink, paint, or gold leaf; especially on vellum, ink can chip or be rubbed off.
Turn pages at their outer edges.
If you encounter unopened/uncut pages (where the folds in the gatherings are still connected, preventing the turning of single pages), please alert the Reference Desk. The Reference Desk will either assist or alert the Curator of Rare Books.
Be aware of the condition of the books you are handling. Even new-looking books may be at risk: for example, perfect-bound books with pages that are simply glued into the spine and that can easily pop out when not handled with care.
Use gloves when handling negatives, transparencies, and all unprotected pictorial material.
Hold a print, drawing, or photograph, even when mounted, at its sides with both hands.
Touch only the edges of photoprints, never the image itself.
Keep pictorial materials flat; do not flex them.
Limit movement, shifting, and stacking of images within folders or containers. Carry boxes by supporting them at the bottom.
Use care in handling binders of photos: Images may be unsecured or too close to the binding hardware, and cardboard-mounted photographs may be in danger of flexing.
Please note: Pictorial staff must assist in the handling of at-risk or restricted pictorial material.
Finding aids are inventories, registers, indexes, or guides to archival collections. Finding aids provide detailed descriptions of collections, their intellectual organization, and individual items or groups of items in collections.
Because these collections are often voluminous and contain unique materials, finding aids are generally available to help researchers to determine the contents of archival collections. They often include biographical or historical notes about the creator, scope and content notes about what is in a collection, and container listings. When digitized material from archival collections is available, it is linked within the finding aid listing, or you can search the same archival digital collections directly in Calisphere.
The Bancroft Library’s finding aids
The Bancroft Library’s finding aids are part of the Online Archive of California (OAC). If an online version of the finding aid exists, you will see a link to it in the links section of the UC Library Search catalog record. Print copies of finding aids are also kept in the Heller Reading Room.
The Bancroft Library has integrated Aeon into our online finding aids on the OAC. We highly recommend searching for and paging our materials through this system to ensure accuracy and efficiency. If you wish to request specific boxes or containers in a manuscript collection, click the "Request items" link at the top of the guide to initiate your request. You will be prompted to login to Aeon, where you can specify containers, folders, or items, and then submit your request. For more information, please see this Aeon guide.
For a detailed description on how to use primary source materials and their associated finding aids, please consult the Library Research Using Primary Sources guide.
ArchiveGrid
Bancroft finding aids, as well as finding aids from other archival repositories around the country, are available in a union database known as ArchiveGrid.
Between the years 2004 and 2009, the United States Forest Service Region 5 retirees’ oral history committee, with financial and logistical support from the Regional Forester, conducted interviews with Forest Service retirees. The resulting oral histories addressed key themes — Forest Careers, Community, Timber Management, Changing Workforce, Fire Control, and Public Relations — that have helped shape the region’s and nation’s Forest Service in the latter half of the 20th century. Completion of the project was overseen by the oral history committee who in turn utilized members of the region’s past workforce as interviewers to conduct and record over 150 oral interviews. Completed interviews were then professionally transcribed and lightly edited. As a means to provide accessibility to the interviews, the committee entered into a collaborative agreement with the University of California, Berkeley’s Regional Oral History Office (ROHO) to publish two volumes of edited oral history from the project — The Lure of the Forest: Oral Histories from the National Forests In California (2005) and The Unmarked Trail: Managing National Forests in a Turbulent Era (2009). Under the agreement, ROHO Associate Director Victor W. Geraci, Ph.D., selected interview segments, lightly edited them, and provided advice on the historical narrative to help contextualize the interview clips based upon the selected themes. The resulting manuscript narratives reflect the individual and collective memory of how the Service navigated dramatic policy, personnel, scientific, legal, legislative, and budgetary changes to arrive at a modern version of Gifford Pinchot’s maxim of “wise use.” The agreement also provided for the webpage mounting of many of the complete interviewee transcripts.
In preparation for the Forest Service’s 100th anniversary, Region Five retirees, with financial and logistical support from the Regional Forester, established an oral history committee to interview over 50 retirees and publish the edited portions of the interviews as part of a collaborative agreement with the University of California, Berkeley’s Regional Oral History Office (ROHO). Victor W. Geraci, Ph.D., ROHO Associate Director, then selected interview segments and lightly edited them for publication and prepared contextual narrative.
The selected interview clips provide the narrative for the common recurring themes that reflected how past employees remembered their service to the forest and the struggles they faced in the course of their careers. In the first part, “The Lure of the Forest,” we listen to stories that detail why both men and women joined the Forest Service and what motivated young people to dedicate their lives to stewardship of our forest resources. Part two, “Called to Service,” lays out how these Forest Service veterans recall multitasking, job mobility, promotion, and the transition from jack-of-all-trades positions to a more specialized profession. In part three, “Managing Multi-Headed Dragons,” participants speak about their experiences and philosophy of protection and conservation of our forest resources from fire. Their story continues in part four, “The Forest Community: Everyday Life In the Service,” as “old-timers” describe their social history and their sense of the loss of a forest community. In part five, “Memorable Events and People — Remembering the Good Times,” the narrative briefly turns to the heartwarming stories that naturally radiate from oral histories.
As a continuation of the 2004 oral history project, the USDA Forest Service Region 5 retirees’ oral history committee, with financial and logistical support from the Regional Forester, conducted interviews for publication of a second volume of edited interviews. The committee extended its collaborative agreement with the University of California, Berkeley’s Regional Oral History Office (ROHO) and again Victor W. Geraci, Ph.D., ROHO Associate Director, selected interview segments, lightly edited them for publication, and researched and suggested contextual narrative.
In the first section, “Timber,” foresters reflect upon the shift from an era when timber was king and necessary for the benefit of the national economy to an era driven by an environmental focus that resulted in reduced budgets and new legal and legislative restrictions. The second section of the book, “Changing Workforce,” showcases narrative stories that reflect upon the changing employment demographics as specialization of job descriptions, civil rights concerns, affirmative action, and a consent decree ushered in new professions, people of color, and women to the Service. Section three, “Firescope,” concentrates on the development of Region 5's cutting-edge approach to increase effectiveness of firefighting policies and procedures. The resulting Firescope program became a model for local, state, national, and international approaches to all large-scale human disasters. In the final section, “Communications,” narrators describe how the Forest Service utilized Public Relations to protect the Service’s public image in an era of challenges by environmentalists who portrayed the Service as destroyers of the very natural resources that they were sworn to protect.
Bibliography
Beck, Leigh. An Interview with Leigh Beck. Edited by Jacqueline S. Reiner. Durham N.C: Forest History Society, 2002.
Bergen, Geri Vanderveer. An Interview with Geri Vanderveer Bergen. Edited by Jacqueline S. Reiner. Durham, N.C.: Forest History Society, 2001.
Black, S. Rexford. “Private and State Forestry in California: 1917-1960.” Oral history conducted by Amelia R. Fry for the UC Berkeley Bancroft Library Regional Oral History Office, 1968.
Cermak, Robert W. Fire In the Forest: A History of Forest Fire Control On the National Forests In California, 1898-1956. USDA FS publication R5-FR-003; California, 2005.
Chase, Richard A. “FIRESCOPE: A New Concept in Multiagency Fire Suppression Coordination.” Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station General Technical Report PSW-40, 1980.
Clepper, Henry Edward. Professional Forestry in the United States. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971.
Connaughton, Charles A. “National Forests Lands of many Uses: Regional Forrester’s Report 1961. San Francisco: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service California Region, 1961.
Cox, Thomas R., Robert S. Maxwell, and Phillip Drennon Thomas. This Well-Wooded Land: Americans and Their Forests from Colonial Times to the Present. University of Nebraska Press, 1985.
Davies, Gilbert W. Memories from the Land of Siskiyou: Past Lives and Times in Siskiyou County. History Ink Books, 1993.
________. Memorable Forest Fires: Stories. History Ink Books, 1995.
________. The Forest Ranger Who Could: Pioneer Custodians of the United States Forest Service 1905-1912. History Ink Books, 2003.
Davies, Gilbert W., and Florice M. Frank. Stories of the Klamath National Forest: The First 50 Years : 1905-1955. History Ink Books, 1992.
Davis, James B. and Robert L Irwin. “FOCUS: A Computerized Approach To Fire Management Planning,” Journal of Forestry. 74:9 September 1976, 615 – 618.
Fedkin, John. Managing Multiple Uses In National Forests, 1905-1995: A 90-year Learning Experience and It Isn’t Finished Yet. USDA Forest Service, 1999.
Fried, Jeremy S., J. Keith Gilless and James Spero. “Analyzing Initial Attack on Wildland Fires Using Stochastic Simulation,” International Journal of Wildland Fire 15: 2006, 137146.
Frome, M. The Forest Service, 2nd Ed., Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1984.
Garfield, James. Peak Performers: The New Heroes of American Business. New York: Avon Books, 1987.
Geraci, Victor W., editor. The Lure of the Forest: Oral Histories from the National Forests In California. USDA FS publication R5-FR-005, 2005.
Godfrey, Anthony. The Ever-Changing View: A History of the National Forests In California. USDA FS publication R5-FR-004, 2005.
Graham, Otis L., Jr. Limited Bounty: The US Since WWII. McGraw-Hill,1995.
________, Jr. Environmental Politics and Policy 1960s to 1990s (Issues in Policy History, 9). Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000.
Gray, Bob. Forest, Fires, and Wild Things. Naturegraph Publishers, 1997.
Holmes, Beverly C. An Interview with Beverly C. Holmes. Edited by Carol C. Severance. Durham, N.C.: Forest History Society, 2002.
Johnson, Clara. An Interview with Clara Johnson. Edited by Jacqueline S. Reiner. Durham, N.C.: Forest History Society, 2002.
Kaufmann, Herbert. The Forest Ranger. Johns Hopkins Press, 1960, 1967.
Kelley, Evan W. “The Making of A Regional Forester.” Oral history conducted by Amelia R. Fry for the UC Berkeley Bancroft Library Regional Oral History Office, 1974.
Kotok, Edward I. “The U.S. Forest Service: Research, State Forestry, and FAO.” Oral history conducted by Amelia R. Fry for the UC Berkeley Bancroft Library Regional Oral History Office, 1975.
Kruger, Myron E. “Forestry and Technology in Northern California; 1925-1965.” Oral history conducted by Amelia R. Fry for the UC Berkeley Bancroft Library Regional Oral History Office and the Forest History Society, 1968.
Lewis, James G. “The Applicant Is No Gentleman: Women in the Forest Service.” Journal of Forestry. July/August, 2005, 259-263.
________. The Forest Service and the Greatest Good: A Centennial History. Forest History Society, Durham, NC.
Li Master, Dennis C. Decade of Change: The Remaking of Forest Service Statutory Authority During the 1970s. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1984.
Miller, Char and Rebecca Staebler. The Greatest Good: 100 Years of Forestry in America. Society of American Foresters, 1999.
Mees, Romain. “An Algorithm To Help Design Fire Simulation and Other Data Base Work,” USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-9/1974.
Pinchot, Gifford. Breaking New Ground, New York: Harcourt Brace, 1947.
Kelley, Evan W. “The Making of A Regional Forester.” Oral history conducted by Amelia R. Fry for the UC Berkeley Bancroft Library Regional Oral History Office, 1974.
Kotok, Edward I. “The U.S. Forest Service: Research, State Forestry, and FAO.” Oral history conducted by Amelia R. Fry for the UC Berkeley Bancroft Library Regional Oral History Office, 1975.
Kruger, Myron E. “Forestry and Technology in Northern California; 1925-1965.” Oral history conducted by Amelia R. Fry for the UC Berkeley Bancroft Library Regional Oral History Office and the Forest History Society, 1968.
Lewis, James G. “The Applicant Is No Gentleman: Women in the Forest Service.” Journal of Forestry. July/August, 2005, 259-263.
________. The Forest Service and the Greatest Good: A Centennial History. Forest History Society, Durham, NC.
Li Master, Dennis C. Decade of Change: The Remaking of Forest Service Statutory Authority During the 1970s. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1984.
Miller, Char and Rebecca Staebler. The Greatest Good: 100 Years of Forestry in America. Society of American Foresters, 1999.
Mees, Romain. “An Algorithm To Help Design Fire Simulation and Other Data Base Work,” USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-9/1974.
People Service People: Women and Minorities Working in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1980.
Peters, Thomas J. and Robert H. Waterman, Jr. In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s-Run Companies. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1982.
Pyne, Stephen J. America's Fires: Management on Wildlands and Forests (Forest History Society Issues Series). Forest History Society, 1997.
________. Year of the Fires: The Story of the Great Fires of 1910. Penguin Books, 2002.
Pyne, Stephen J., and William Cronon. Fire in America: A Cultural History of Wildland and Rural Fire (Weyerhaeuser Environmental Book). University of Washington Press, 1997.
Robbins, William G. American Forestry: A History of National, State, and Private Cooperation. University of Nebraska Press, 1985.
Runte, Alfred. Public Lands, Public Heritage: The National Forest Idea. Roberts Rinehart Publishers, 1991.
Schama, Simon. Landscape and Memory. New York: Vintage Books, 1995.
Show, S. Bevier. “National Forests In California.” Oral history conducted by Amelia R. Fry for the UC Berkeley Bancroft Library Regional Oral History Office, 1965.
Steen, Harold K. The U.S. Forest Service: A History. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2004.
Steinberg, Ted. Down to Earth: Nature's Role in American History. Oxford University Press, 2002.
The Consent Decree in USDA Forest Service Region 5 and the Pacific Southwest Research Station. Four interviews conducted in 1992 under the auspices of USDA Forest Service and the Oral History Program, CSUS. Collection number: OH-003.
Thomas, J.C. and P. Mohai. Racial, Gender, and Professional Diversification in the Forest Service from 1983 to 1992. Policy Studies Journal 23(2): 296-309. 1995
U.S. Department of Agriculture- Forest Service. Women in the Forest Service. MP-1058. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.
Williams, Gerald W. The USDA Forest Service: the First Century (Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service, 2000 (FS-650).
The Oral History Center (then the Regional Oral History Office) of the Bancroft Library conducted an oral history project to document the history of the Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream Company, interviewing some of the key people who built its local, national, and international presence. For the project, OHC conducted approximately 100 hours of interviews with the owners, investors, employees, and relevant individuals who helped make Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream an international brand between 1978 and 2006.
Historical context
Over the past century and a half, California’s coastal Mediterranean climate and irrigated inland valleys provided insightful entrepreneurs in the Golden State, and the Bay Area in particular, opportunities to become leaders in food and wine agribusinesses. As a result, the state served as the springboard for numerous food and wine businesses to establish profitable regional operations. By the 20th century, these businesses emerged as integral parts of multinational diversified corporations and key players in the global economy. Examples of these companies include: coffee giants Maxwell House, Hills Brothers, and Peet’s; bread giant Boudin; Golden Grain Macaroni’s Rice-a-Roni; chocolatiers Ghirardelli and Scharffenberger; and wine giants, including Gallo and Mondavi. Yet, the story is somewhat bifurcated in that food became more than a business as it emerged as a marker for regional identity predicated upon enjoying fine local foods and imbibing world-class wines. The Bay Area’s post World War II era also nurtured regional food educators and practitioners that elevated the status of the region’s foodways. Herb Caen, Cecilia Chiang, Doris Muscatine, Narsai David, and Alice Waters, among others, became modern food pioneers dedicated to establishing a regional food identity. In the end, the best of the regional foodways became a focal point for businesspersons to grow local food businesses into profitable national and global brands.
Missing from the story is the role of Bay Area ice creams, such as Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, that played a vital role in this process. Dreyer’s serves as an important case study for the route of developing a local business and growing it to the regional, state, national, and eventually global marketplace. Founded in 1928 and opened on Oakland’s Grand Avenue, Dreyer’s ice cream business survived the challenges of the Great Depression and World War II by producing quality ice cream and developing new brand awareness built upon their invention of Rocky Road ice cream. Over the next few decades Dreyer’s became the largest American ice cream company and, in 1981, the corporation began to trade shares on the NASDAQ. The company's entrance into the global marketplace came in 2006 when Nestlé Corporation acquired 67 percent of their shares and thus became the world's largest producer of ice cream.
Project team (active circa 2010-14)
Victor W. Geraci, project director and interviewer; Shanna Farrell, interviewer; Robin Li, interviewer; Linda Norton, editor; and David Dunham, technologist
Widely believed to be the first “ice cream” developed in China by freezing a soft mixture of milk and rice and packing it into snow.
2nd Century AD
Arab medical historian Ibn Abu Usaybi offers first technical description of ice-making using salt, a technology that likely came originally from China.
7th Century
First documented evidence of ice cream production shows Chinese cooks fermenting, flavoring, and freezing a mix of buffalo, cows’, and goats’ milk during Tang Dynasty.
1660s
Using salt to freeze foods done in Europe for first time: sorbets and ices made with sweetened milk in Naples.
1686
After opening a chain of coffee houses across Central Europe, impoverished Palermo aristocrat, Francesco Procopio Dei Coletti, opens the first café in Paris. “Café Procope” debuts frozen ices, custards and creams, marking the beginning of the gelateria.
1700s
French begin using egg yolks in their ice cream production, marking the origin of custard-based (or “French-style”) ice creams. First known written ice cream recipes appear in the unsigned manuscript L’Art de Faire des Glaces (1700).
1744
Colonist William Black mentions “fine Ice Cream” being served at a dinner party given by Maryland Governor Thomas Bladen, the first record of American ice cream.
1777
Phillip Lenzi advertises the sale of ice cream at his New York City confectioners shop, likely the first retail ice cream location in the US (established c.1774).
1781
Lenzi-competitor Joseph Corre first to advertise the sale of “Ice Cream” by that name.
1792
First ice cream recipe published in the US appears in Richard Briggs’ The New Art of Cooker, According to the Present Practice (W. Spotswood, R. Campbell, and B. Johnson: Philadelphia, PA), 1792.
1802
Thomas Jefferson becomes the first US President to serve ice cream at the White House. Jefferson also credited with bringing “French-style” ice cream (made with egg yolks) to the U.S.
1807
First documentary evidence of an “ice cream cone” appears in the colored engraving “Frascati” by Parisian artist Louis-Philibert Debucourt. The picture depicts a young woman licking an ice-cream cone in the Neaopolitan-owned Café Frascati. This image challenges the commonly-held belief that the ice cream cone was invented at the 1904 St. Louis World’s Fair.
1820s
Augustus Jackson, former White House cook, moves to Philadelphia and begins catering business supplying ice cream to customers and several African American-owned ice cream parlors. Becomes one of Philadelphia’s wealthiest African Americans, often erroneously referred to as “the man who invented ice cream.” Credited with creating many new ice cream recipes.
1843
Nancy Johnson develops and patents first hand-crank ice cream maker. Sells patent to William Young for $200, who names it the “Johnson Patent Ice-Cream Freezer”
1851
Quaker dairy-delivery entrepreneur Jacob Fussell establishes the first large-scale commercial ice cream plant in Seven Valleys, Pennsylvania. Later moved to Baltimore to be closer to the consumer market.
1870s
Development of industrial refrigeration by German engineer Carl von Linde eliminates the need to cut and store natural ice.
1876
The Centennial Exhibition of 1876, held in Philadelphia, brought national attention to the Philadelphia ice cream culture and popularized “Philadelphia-style” ice cream, made without eggs, or with only egg whites.
1890s
In the United States, the French phrase, “à la mode,” used to mean “served with ice cream.”
1899
August Gaulin of Paris invents the homogenizer, which is used to develop the smooth texture of ice cream. US annual ice-cream production (in gallons): 5 million
1905
Thomas D. Cutler founds The Ice Cream Trade Journal. In New York City, Emery Thompson develops the gravity-fed batch ice cream freezer, which allowed for continuous production.
1906
As the galley boy, William Dreyer given the prestigious job of producing ice cream to celebrate his German ship's arrival in America. After a brief stint making ice cream in New York City, relocates to Northern California to begin a twenty-year apprenticeship with Peerless Ice Cream and National Ice Cream Company.
1909
Chicago leads the way towards safe dairy and ice cream production with the first compulsory pasteurization regulation. U.S. annual ice-cream production (in gallons): 30 million.
1919
U.S. annual ice-cream production (in gallons): 150 million
1920
First ice cream filling and packaging machines introduced by Mojonnier Brothers and Sealright.
1921
Dreyer opens his own ice creamery in Visalia and wins first prize at Pacific Slope Dairy Show.
1920s
Dreyer begins teaching ice cream courses as the Professor Advanced Ice Cream Manufacturing at the University of California, Davis and serving as an officer in the California Dairy Industries Association.
1923
Nizer Cabinet Company introduces the first automatic electric freezer.
1926
National Ice Cream recruits William Dreyer to run a large new plant in Oakland. Clarence Vogt of Lexington, Kentucky develops the first commercially adopted continuous-process freezer.
1928
Dreyer partners with successful Bay Area candy-maker Joseph Edy to found a small ice cream factory on Grand Avenue in Oakland, California, named the Grand Ice Cream Company, with a focus on creative innovation.
1929
Purportedly calming his nerves after Black Thursday, Dreyer adds walnuts (later replaced with almonds) to his chocolate ice cream and, using his wife's sewing shears, cut marshmallows into bite-sized pieces to make the first batch of Rocky Road, a name that gave people something to smile about in the face of the Great Depression. (note: An 1853 Australian confection, sold under the same name, was made of chocolate, marshmallow, nuts, and other fillers and sold to gold miners who travelled the “rocky road” to get to the Australian gold fields.) Prior to this, ice cream had been primarily sold in vanilla, chocolate or strawberry flavors and this marked one of the first flavor combination ice creams. Edy and Dreyer are also credited with creating Toasted Almond and Candy Mint.
1934
Thomas Carvelas, a Greek American, begins selling ice cream in New York and invents a freezer that allows him to make soft “Carvel” ice cream. Pairs American love of ice cream with the romance of car culture, and establishes an ice cream empire of roadside ice cream shops.
1946
Dreyer’s only son, William Dreyer, Jr. enters the business. Edy shifts focus exclusively to candy business.
1947
Joseph Edy and William Dreyer, Sr. officially dissolve their partnership.
1948
Dreyer builds a state-of-the-art ice cream plant in Oakland, California and renames the company Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc.
1953
Dreyer retires and passes management of the company on to his son, “Junior,” though remains active in the company until his death in 1975.
1963
“Junior” sells the company to his key officers – Al Wolff, Bob Boone and Ken Cook.
1977
Fraternity brothers and struggling restauranteurs William Cronk and Gary Rogers buy Dreyer’s for $1.1 million.
1979
Cronk and Rogers introduce Dreyer’s to markets in Washington, Oregon and Arizona while remaining committed to the company’s unique Direct Store Delivery (DSD) model. Model includes using own trucks, drivers, routes and running in-story inventory to insure quality control. As East Coast-based Breyers Ice Cream (owned by Kraft Foods) and West Coast-based Dreyer’s expand into national markets, concerns about brand confusion leads Dreyer’s to agree to use the brand name “Edy’s” in the Eastern U.S. market.
1981
Sales reach $30 million, from $6 million at time of Cronk/Rogers acquisition. Dreyer’s goes public with shares traded on NASDAQ under the ticker symbol DRYR. Dreyer’s President Ken Cook enters the vanilla business, and since then Dreyer’s ice cream has been made with Cook’s Vanilla produced by the Cook Flavoring Company. $45 million Initial Public Offering.
1982
Official ice cream taster John Harrison invents Cookies ‘n’ Cream flavor ice cream.
1983
Begins expansion across the Rockies with introduction of Edy’s brand to St Louis, Milwaukee and parts of Ohio. At this point, Dreyer’s had experienced a 959 percent increase in sales since acquisition by Cronk and Rogers
1980s
As company expands, T. Gary Rogers composes the “I Can Make a Difference” philosophy defined by ten tenets, or “Grooves” that aim to empower individuals to realize their potential and promote a cohesive corporate culture.
1985
To accommodate growing East coast distribution needs, Dreyer’s acquires Maryland-based Berliner Foods Corporation.
1986
Acquires Midwest Distributing Company to enter Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan markets.
1987
Dreyer’s becomes first premium ice cream maker to introduce products for the health-conscious consumer, invents proprietary process that produces the first “light” ice cream. The company becomes distributor for Ben & Jerry’s, helping to cover the high cost of company-owned DSD trucks. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream Charitable Foundation established, supporting community, youth and K-12 public education programs, focused on communities that are home to Dreyer’s operating facilities. Embarks on five-year marketing plan to double sales by the end of the decade.
1989
In addition to an expanded distribution relationship, Dreyer’s begins manufacturing ten percent of Ben & Jerry’s “super premium” pint-sized ice cream at its plant in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
1990
Dreyer’s introduces new cholesterol-free frozen dessert called American Dream. Less than 1 % fat and 80 calories per three once serving.
1990s
Partners with Nissho Iwai Corporation to market and sell Dreyer’s products in Japan. Pressure from the U.S. forces Japan to lift restrictions on dairy imports, allowing Dreyer’s to ship directly to Japan from manufacturing sites in California. Rising dairy prices stifle market expansion.
1992
Unveils Dreyer’s and Edy’s No Sugar Added ice cream lines, to great success. Expands overseas sales to include exporting to countries in Asia, Pacific Islands, Caribbean and South America.
1993
Anglo-Dutch company Unilever outbids Dreyer’s for acquisition of Breyers. Unilever also purchases Gold Bond-Good Humor Ice Cream Company and renames the brand to Good Humor-Breyers Ice Cream Company, continuing the trend towards the globalization of the ice cream industry.
1994
Nestlé acquires approximately 30% of the company.
1995
Dreyer’s succeeds in 14-year struggle to exceed Breyer’s sale, becomes the leading packaged ice cream brand in the U.S. market. In celebration, the company held the Mother of All Parties (MOAP), chartering three DC-10s to bring all employees to Oakland for an “I Can” theme party. Also expands its charitable work with the launch of the Grand Expectations Program.
1996
Oakland City Council votes 8 to 0 to allow 57,000 square-foot $15 million expansion of Oakland manufacturing facility.
1996
30% jump in dairy prices due to drought conditions in dairy states and weakening demand for ice cream hurts profitability.
1998
200,000 people a year take the Dreyer’s factory tour. Michele Massari tour-guide
1998
For the first time Dreyer’s cuts 100 jobs, mainly through attrition, and sells some operations to trim costs and return to profitability. Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Inc. of Vermont rebuffed a purchase offer from Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, strains distribution relationship. New CFO Tim Kahn committed to “greening” the company, makes truck routes and freezer cycling more efficient.
1999
Virginia-based Mars confectioners partners with Dreyer's to create popular “mix-ins” ice cream products (Snickers Ice Cream bar). Ended with Nestlé buy-out in 2002.
1999
September Dreyer’s launches super-premium Dreamery line…to counter the category 42% Haagen-Daz and 38% Ben & Jerry shares of the super-premium market. These pint ice creams offer high margins of profitability. Dreamery line quickly gets 14% of market share.
1999
Nestlé USA joint venture with Häagen-Dazs Plc for super-premium line just at time Dreyer’s launching super-premium Dreamery line. But deal is really a move to someday-own Dreyer’s for its distribution system. Dreyer’s already distributes Nestlé novelties and Ben & Jerry’s.
2000
Company installs voice-enabled picking systems in warehouses to maintain worker comfort and productivity in 20 degrees below zero work environment. Distribution center productivity increases fifteen to twenty-five percent, mispick rates plummet.
2002
Nestlé acquires 67% of the company, with rights to purchase the rest by 2006. T. Gary Rogers retains post of Chairman and Chief Executive, President William F. Cronk
2003
W.F. (Rick) Cronk, President of Dreyer's, retires after 26 years in the ice cream business.
2004
Produced using a new churning process called “low-temperature extrusion”, Dreyer's and Edy’s Slow Churned™ Grand Light® Ice Cream has half the fat and a third fewer calories than full-fat premium and takes the ice cream world by storm.
2004
Dreyer’s expands with an East Coast plant in Laurel, Maryland.
2004
Dreyer's acquires Silhouette Brands and its low-fat and low-carb frozen snacks brands, Skinny Cow® and Skinny Carb Bar™.
2004
Dreyer’s buys franchise rights to all 236 Häagen-Dazs shops in the US from General Mills of Golden Valley, Minnesota.
2005
Dreyer’s debuts “Slow Churned” ice cream recognized as Best New Product of the year by four industry publications.
2006
Nestlé takes full ownership of Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, and becomes world’s biggest ice cream manufacturer with 17.5% of the market share.
Bibliography
Berger, Jonah, Michaela Draganska, and Itamar Simonson. 2007. “The influence of Product Variety on Brand Perception and Choice.” Marketing Science 26 (4) (Jul - Aug): 460-72.
Breedlove, L. B. 1932. “The Ice Cream Industry: Its Economics and Future.” The Journal of Land & Public Utility Economics 8 (3) (Aug): 234-47.
EIP Associates and Oakland (Calif.) City Planning Dept. 1989. Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream Office Project: Draft Environmental Impact Report. San Francisco: The Associates.
Hawkes, Jerry M., James D. Libbin, and Jeremy D. Kohler. 2004. Can Ranch Owners Include the Ranch in an Investment Portfolio? Rangelands 26 (6) (Dec): 31-9.
Kaven, William H., and David L. Call. 1967. Private-Label Marketing in the Ice-Cream Industry. The Journal of Marketing 31 (1) (Jan): 35-8.
Keller, Kevin Lane, and Donald R. Lehmann. 2006. Brands and Branding: Research Findings and Future Priorities. Marketing Science 25 (6) (Nov - Dec): 740-59.
Lane, Vicki, and Robert Jacobson. 1995. Stock Market Reactions to Brand Extension Announcements: The Effects of Brand Attitude and Familiarity. The Journal of Marketing 59 (1) (Jan): 63-77.
“New Products & Marketing - New Product Review - New Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream Flavors, Indian Ethnic Cheese, Fruit Dips for One, and Organic Pudding.” 2002. Dairy Foods. 103 (5): 20.
Nowlis, Stephen M., and Itamar Simonson. 2000. “Sales Promotions and the Choice Context as Competing Influences on Consumer Decision Making.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 9 (1): 116.
Pava, Moses L., and Joshua Krausz. 1996. The Association Between Corporate Social-Responsibility and Financial Performance: The Paradox of Social Cost. Journal of Business Ethics 15 (3) (Mar): 321-57.
“Plant of the Year Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream.” 2006. Food Engineering 78 (4): 57-71.
Quinzio, Jeri. Of Sugar and Snow: A History of Ice Cream Making. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009.
Rogers, T. Gary. The Spirit of Adventure: Going for the Gusto In Life. Oakland: T. Gary Rogers, 2007.
Rogers, T. Gary and Jerome S. Engel, Berkeley Entrepreneurs Forum, Lester Center for Entrepreneurship & Innovation., and Audio Visual Consultants. 1994. Entrepreneurship and Ice Cream. Oakland, CA: Audio Visual Consultants.
“Rollout! Frozen Delights: New Häagen-Dazs Low-Fat Ice Cream, Plus the Latest Starbucks/Dreyer's Flavors.” 1997. Food Processing. 58 (2): 36.
Simon, Carol J., and Mary W. Sullivan. 1993. The Measurement and Determinants of Brand Equity: A Financial Approach. Marketing Science 12 (1) (Winter): 28-52.
Simonson, Itamar, Stephen M. Nowlis, and Yael Simonson. 1993. The Effect of Irrelevant Preference Arguments on Consumer Choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2 (3): 287-306.
“Special Features - Light and Easy - Ice Cream Outlook 2006.” 2006. Dairy Foods. 107 (3): 32.
Targan, Barry. 1983. The Emperor of Ice Cream. The Sewanee Review 91 (1) (Winter): 17-52.
In the fall of 1964, the Berkeley campus of the University of California was rocked by the Free Speech Movement. These interviews recount the experiences of a cross section of participants in or witness to the events, including: student leaders and the lawyers who defended those disciplined and arrested; faculty who were in favor of and others who vehemently opposed FSM; ordinary students who as one freshman noted, were “trying to figure out what was going on. People were really caught by how important this was and trying to sort out the adult world response to it. You knew that this was a big deal.” Because of repeated massive demonstrations — 10,000 students surrounding a police car in the middle of Sproul Plaza; 800 people occupying the central administration building — Berkeley drew national attention. In the words of one interviewee, a journalist who covered the FSM for the nationwide Collegiate Press News Service: “FSM opened up everything — just blew out the tubes of being able to move large amounts of information across the country. It wasn’t exactly that Berkeley was the first place where this mechanism kicked in [political protest] but it was the place where it went critical.”
The Free Speech Movement Oral History Project consists of nearly fifty interviews — most are available here, but some are still in process. Interviews were conducted by Lisa Rubens, a historian and longtime interviewer for the Regional Oral History Office, between 1999 and 2001, after extensive meetings with an advisory committee. Dr. Rubens was also a student at Berkeley during the FSM and had been a witness to many of the major events of that movement. The project was funded by Stephen M. Silberstein as part of his generous gift to UC Berkeley for creating an FSM archive at The Bancroft Library and building the Free Speech Movement Café to honor Mario Savio and commemorate the movement.
The primary goal for these interviews was to fill in information about the history of the movement that remained undocumented. We wanted interviewees to talk about issues that had not surfaced in contemporary accounts — for example, the role of race and gender within the movement itself. We wanted to record the story of leaders who had not been interviewed previously, and to have them reflect on the interpersonal and social dynamics that influenced decision-making, in addition to the political and tactical issues that were discussed.
We were particularly eager to interview “the troops” — students who volunteered to perform the myriad of seemingly mundane yet critical tasks, including those who typed the position papers and ran the ditto machines in an era before photo-copying, those who secured the amplification system used during the sometimes daily information and action rallies, or those who managed the housekeeping tasks for members of the FSM Steering Committee and the movement itself. We looked for interview subjects who could comment on the wide variety of activism that the movement engendered: The student who was sympathetic but who could tolerate attending only some of the rallies and missing only a few classes when a strike was called; the journalist who had not considered Berkeley a part of the student movement until FSM; members of SLATE, the radical student organization that had fought with the university since 1962, and now watched a new generation of leaders emerge; the junior professor who was one of a small minority in his department who voted to support the FSM; a university staff employee who felt compelled to take a stand. Associated Student Body President, Charlie Powell, who had never been interviewed before, is also a part of this collection. His narrative sheds light on the personal ordeal of leadership and the contingency of power.
The project sought to find subjects who represented the wide spectrum of political belief, as reflected in organizations which composed the FSM Executive Committee. This remains one of the least developed parts of the story and should be pursued. Inevitably an undertaking of this scope veers from its carefully mapped strategy and follows a seemingly un-plotted course. Sometimes an interviewee was selected because they had a good story to tell. Sometimes they were selected because they were currently engaged in activities that illustrated the continuities between FSM and contemporary social activism.
Another area of inquiry was the relationship between faculty and students during the movement. One of the many topics of discourse during the FSM was the size and mandate of the University of California and the need for educational reform. President Clark Kerr’s book, The Uses of the Multiversity, and the perceived intransigence and impersonalization of the administrations both for the university system-wide and at UC Berkeley, were widely criticized. For many, the FSM initiated a period of intense questioning of all aspects of their lives. Many students met with their professors and teaching assistants formally and informally to talk about the relationship of their studies to the events taking place on the campus, about the nature of education and citizenship and the function of civil protest. Faculty and graduate students in the departments of Political Science, History, and Sociology were chosen to illuminate these exchanges, because they represented some, but by no means all, of the more articulate and engaged members of the campus community. We also interviewed a faculty member who opposed the movement: Robert Scalapino, Department of Political Science, who chaired the Council of Departmental Chairmen and the University Forum at the Greek Theatre the day after the mass arrests. And we have included as well, undergraduate students who were episodic in their attention to the issues as well as their participation in the events that constituted the FSM. These are particularly useful for illuminating the multiplicity of concerns students had, the moral fervor that drove them, and for some, how they came to think of themselves as citizens.
The lawyers who defended over 800 students arrested during the occupation of U.C. Berkeley’s Administration Hall, Dec. 2-3, 1964, had never been interviewed. At the time, this was the largest mass arrest in California history. As the news of the occupation and arrests spread, many lawyers came to Sproul Hall and to Santa Rita County Jail where the students were charged and booked, to volunteer their services. The legal defense was long and complicated and ably led by a team of six attorneys. Sadly, just as this project got underway, one of the attorneys, Stanley Black, died. Black had been the former law partner of Superior Court Judge Rupert J. Crittenden, who presided over the first trial. Some of the lawyers indicated that Black was picked in order to elicit the support of the judge. In the course of conducting these interviews, Attorney Malcom Burnstein made available the letters of arrestees written to Judge Crittenden, at the judge’s request, explaining their reason for occupying Sproul Hall. Now deposited in the FSM archives in The Bancroft Library, these letters are among the most immediate testimony and summary of participants’ beliefs even though they were written three years after the actual event.
The majority of interviews were conducted at the interviewee’s place of work or home. Most of the interviews were recorded in one session of an hour and a half in length; some went longer; others included two sessions. Usually interviews began with the interviewee telling where they were located in September 1964. This was followed by questions eliciting how they encountered, reacted to, and/or participated in the FSM. While none of these are life histories, questions about what factors in their background may have shaped their response to FSM are pursued.
These interviews provide insights into how students, staff, and faculty became engaged in a battle with the university and formed a movement to struggle for their civil right to advocate political action in the larger community as well as on the campus. They offer reflections on the academic, cultural, and social climate at the university in the years leading up to and following that fateful fall term of 1964. They situate the Free Speech Movement in the context of larger political issues and social movements that preceded the movement, such as the Civil Rights Movement and the Loyalty Oath controversy, and those which came after, such as the anti-Vietnam War activism.
These interviews are not intended to provide a definitive history of the Free Speech Movement. They were conceived as a way to augment other forms of documentation. The number of interviews conducted was determined by the overall budget. In aggregate, and on their own, they offer a social memory and provide first person documentation of an important milestone in the history of the University of California and the Berkeley Campus, in the political life of California, and in the history of social activism in the United States. Beyond documenting what happened and how, these interviews reveal the personal qualities and skills and the array of background experiences and political consciousness that shaped how people responded to the crisis. They offer a glimpse, as well, into the intellectual, social, and cultural currents of the time — to be sure filtered by dramatic changes in subsequent history and distilled by individual the idiosyncratic nature of remembrance.
Advisory committee (2004)
Lynn Savio, FSM Veteran, Board Member, FSM-Archive, widow of Mario Savio
Susan Druding, FSM Veteran and Board Member, FSM-Archive
Waldo Martin, Professor of History, UCB
Michael Rossman, FSM Veteran and Board Member, FSM-Archive
Lisa Rubens, Historian, ROHO, Oral History Project of FSM Digital Archives
Elizabeth Stephens, Archivist, The Bancroft Library, FSM Digital Archives
Li Chi Wang, Professor, Ethnic Studies, UCB
David Wellman, Professor, Department of Community Studies, UC Santa Cruz
Interviews related to the history of food, food systems, and agriculture have been a mainstay of the Oral History Center research agenda since the 1950s. Interviews focus on several interlocking thematic areas including: social and cultural foodways; restaurants and cuisine; wine and wine growing; distilled spirits; small-scale and industrial farming; and agricultural economics and agricultural education. The interviews listed here typically were not conducted as part of an on-going project. Instead, the majority of these interviews document the singular contributions of individuals to food and agriculture in the United States and the larger global arena. Interviews are added to this subject category as they are completed.
In the historically swift span of roughly 20 years, support for the freedom to marry for same-sex couples went from an idea a small portion of Americans agreed with to a cause supported by virtually all segments of the population. In 1996, when Gallup conducted its first poll on the question, a seemingly insurmountable 68% of Americans opposed the extension of marriage rights. In a historic reversal, fewer than 20 years later several polls found that over 60% of Americans had come to support the freedom to marry nationwide. The rapid increase in support mirrored the progress in securing the right to marry coast to coast. Before 2004, no state issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples. By spring 2015, 37 states affirmed the freedom to marry for same-sex couples, with a number of states extending marriage through votes in state legislatures or at the ballot box. The discriminatory federal Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, denied legally married same-sex couples the federal protections and responsibilities afforded married different-sex couples — a double-standard corrected when a core portion of the act was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013 in United States v. Windsor. The full national resolution came in June 2015 when, in Obergefell v. Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution’s guarantee of the fundamental right to marry applies equally to same-sex couples.
The Freedom to Marry oral history project represents the first major effort to document the vast shift in public opinion about marriage, the consequential reconsideration of our nation’s laws governing marriage, and the actions of individuals and organizations largely responsible for these changes. The project produced 23 interviews totaling nearly 100 hours of recordings. Interviewees include: Evan Wolfson, founder of Freedom to Marry; Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights; James Esseks, director of the ACLU’s LGBT & HIV project; and Thalia Zepatos, the movement’s “message guru,” who worked at Freedom to Marry as director of research and messaging.
At the center of the effort to change hearts and minds, prevail in the courts and legislatures, win at the ballot, and win at the Supreme Court was Freedom to Marry, the national campaign launched by Harvard-trained attorney Evan Wolfson in 2003. Freedom to Marry’s national strategy focused from the beginning on setting the stage for a nationwide victory at the Supreme Court. Working with national and state organizations and allied individuals and organizations, Freedom to Marry succeeded in building a critical mass of states where same-sex couples could marry and a critical mass of public support in favor of the freedom to marry. This oral history project focuses on the pivotal role played by Freedom to Marry and their closest state and national organizational partners, as they drove the winning strategy and inspired, grew, and leveraged the work of a multitudinous movement.
