Russell E Tronstad

Interests

No activities entered.

Courses

Scholarly Contributions

Journals/Publications

• Masoud, S., Meng, C., Chowdhury, B., Son, Y., Kubota, C., & Tronstad, R. E. (2021). GRANDES: an online decision support tool for grafting nurseries. Acta Horticulturae, 125-132. doi:https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2021.1302.17
• Tronstad, R. E., Gupta, R., & Kubota, C. (2021). Cost estimates for grafted, non-grafted, and direct- seeded cantaloupes 1. Acta Horticulturae, 141-146. doi:DOI: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2021.1302.19
• Chowdhury, B., Masoud, S., Son, Y., Kubota, C., & Tronstad, R. E. (2020). A dynamic data driven indoor localisation framework based on ultra high frequency passive RFID system. International Journal of Sensor Networks, 34(3), 172-187.
• Sall, I., Tronstad, R. E., & Aradhyula, S. V. (2019). Beef Production Alliance Preferences for Vertical Integration: A Bivariate Nested Panel Probit Approach. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 44(1), 165-179.
• Masoud, S., Son, Y., Kubota, C., & Tronstad, R. E. (2018). Evaluation of simulation based optimization in grafting labor allocation. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 34(3), 479-489.
• Kubota, C., Meng, C., Son, Y., Lewis, M., Spalholz, H., & Tronstad, R. E. (2017). Horticultural, systems-engineering and economic evaluations of short-term plant storage techniques as a labor management tool for vegetable grafting nurseries. PLOS ONE, 12(2). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0170614
• Kubota, C. -., Lewis, M., Tronstad, R. E., & Son, Y. -. (2014). Scenario-based cost analysis for vegetable grafting nurseries of different technology and size. HortScience, 49, 917-930.
• Meng, C., Xi, D., Son, Y. -., Kubota, C. -., Lewis, M., & Tronstad, R. E. (2014). An Integrated Simulation and AHP Approach to Vegetable Grafting Operation Design. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 102, 73-84.
• Tronstad, R. (2011). Unpleasant lessons from the settlement of theWest: Implications for the WAEA and other professional associations. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 36(3), 433-447.
  More info

  Abstract: Parallels are drawn between shortcomings and events that occurred in our western heritage with current issues facing agricultural economists. Challenges are made in relation to conflict of interest policies, external funding, cultivating connections with experts outside our discipline and relevance of research priorities. Survey data on research priorities of upper administrators and faculty within colleges of agriculture are compared to those of Western Agricultural Economics Association members. Upper administrators from land grant colleges rank research focused in the area of competitiveness and profitability less than areas of water usage, food safety, renewable energy, global climate change, or sustainability.
• Richards, T. J., Ellsworth, P., Tronstad, R., & Naranjo, S. (2010). Market-based instruments for the optimal control of invasive insect species: B. Tabaci in Arizona. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 35(3), 349-367.
  More info

  Abstract: Invasive insect species represent perhaps one of the most significant potential sources of economic risk to U.S. agricultural production. Private control of invasive insect species is likely to be insufficient due to negative externality and weaker-link public good problems. In this study, we compare a system of Pigouvian taxes with tradable permits for invasive species control. While the emissions control literature shows that taxes are preferred to permits under cost uncertainty, invasive-species control involves correlated cost and benefit uncertainty. Hence, we expect a quantity-based system to be preferred. Monte Carlo simulations of optimal steady-state outcomes confirm our expectations. Copyright 2010 Western Agricultural Economics Association.
• Richards, T., Ellsworth, P., Tronstad, R., & Naranjo, S. (2010). Market-Based Instruments for the Optimal Control of Invasive Insect Species: B. Tabaci in Arizona. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 35(3), 349-367.
• Frisvold, G. B., Reeves, J. M., & Tronstad, R. (2006). Bt cotton adoption in the United States and China: International trade and welfare effects. AgBioForum, 9(2), 69-78.
  More info

  Abstract: Many studies report that Bt cotton has led to significant yield gains, reduced insecticide use, or both in different countries. With rare exception, these studies examine adoption in one region in isolation from adoption in others. This article summarizes the global impacts of Bt cotton adoption in the United States and China based on results from a three-region model of the world cotton market. In 2001, adoption of Bt cotton in China and the United States increased world cotton production by 0.7% and reduced the world cotton price by 1.4 cents per pound. Global economic benefits were $836 million. Consumer surplus increased $63 million. Chinese producers gained by $428 million and US producers by $179 million. The fall in world price reduced rest-of-world (ROW) producer surplus by $349 million. Net rest-of-world benefits were $69 million, however, because purchaser gains outweighed producer losses. ©2006 AgBioForum.
• Frisvold, G. B., Tronstad, R., & Reeves, J. M. (2006). International impacts of bt cotton adoption. International Trade and Policies for Genetically Modified Products, 191-199.
• Tronstad, R., & Unterschultz, J. (2005). Looking beyond value-based pricing of beef in North America. Supply Chain Management, 10(3), 214-222.
  More info

  Abstract: Purpose - Quality traits desired by consumers may not be adequately captured by beef industry standards associated with grid or value-based pricing alone. Aims to demonstrate this shortcoming by examining strategies of selected companies in North America at the four supply chain levels of cow-calf genetics, feedlot feeding, processing, and retailing that have been proactive in producing desirable beef attributes efficiently to better meet consumer beef demand. Design/methodology/approach - The vertical alliance between Ralphs retailing, Sunland Beef processing, and a handful of feedlots using narrowly defined beef genetics are examined to illustrate how consumer market research and coordination throughout the supply chain may address many shortcomings associated with current value-based pricing of beef criteria. Findings - Better information sharing and coordination between seedstock and retail industries could help assure that consumer preferences of beef palatability and consistency are met while meeting high production efficiency standards. Practical implications - Cow-calf, feedlot, and packing industries need to better track and manage information flows of genetic-management paths from consumer to seedstock producer in order for the beef industry to be more competitive. Originality/value - Experiences of our case companies suggest that the beef industry will need to look beyond the North American grid or value-based pricing of beef in order to maintain or improve market share with competing pork and poultry sectors. © Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
• Aradhyula, S., & Tronstad, R. (2003). Does tourism promote cross-border trade?. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85(3), 569-579.
  More info

  Abstract: We estimate a simultaneous bivariate qualitative choice model of Arizona agribusiness firms' propensity to trade and visit as a tourist the cross-border state of Sonora, Mexico. Venture business visits, quantified through the tourism equation, were found to have the largest impact on a firm's propensity to trade. Tourist visits have a greater impact on trade when combined with other firm attributes such as age, perceived need for geographic diversity, foreign language fluency, and firm size, than if considered alone. Our results suggest that there is a role for government agencies to play in overcoming imperfect information related to trade opportunities through facilitating exploratory business venture and tourist visits.
• Frisvold, G. B., Tronstad, R., & Mortensen, J. (2000). Adoption of Bt cotton: Regional differences in producer costs and returns. 2000 Proceedings Beltwide Cotton Conferences, 337-340.
  More info

  Abstract: This study uses a quadratic programming model to estimate the impacts of Bt cotton adoption on consumer benefits, cotton program outlays, and producer returns, by state and adoption status. Three scenarios were considered simulating low, moderate, and high impacts of Bt cotton adoption. For the moderate scenario, U.S. benefits from Bt adoption grew from $44 million in 1996 to $66 million in 1998. Annual benefits to U.S. cotton purchasers ranged between $46-$55 million. Benefits to Bt adopters grew from $57 million in 1996 to $97 million in 1998. Losses to non-adopters fell from -$59 million in 1996 to -$8 million in 1998 as rising commodity program payments mitigated the impact of lower prices.

Presentations

• Tronstad, R. E., & Chin, E. (2019, July). Feasibility of a Local Food Center: A Discrete Choice Analysis. 2019 Western Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting. Coeur d'Alene, ID.
• Tronstad, R. E., Thillmany, D., Nakamoto, S., & Teegerstrom, T. (2011, January). On-Line Direct Marketing Module for TAA producers. On-line Direct Marketing Module for the Trade Adjustment and Assistance programTrade Adjustment and Assistance program.
  More info

  Internet/intranet

Poster Presentations

• Tronstad, R. E. (2015, December). Value of Grafted Watermelon Transplants in Relation to Land Scarcity. National Vegetable Grafting Symposium. Grand Rapids, Michigan.
  More info

  Value of Grafted Watermelon Transplants in Relation to Land Scarcity: Crop mix is optimized subject to rotation, land, water, and capital constraints using the linear programming solver function in Excel. Crop rotation constraints are such that an acre of barley precedes each acre of non-grafted watermelons in the rotation and each acre of cantaloupe or grafted watermelon is preceded by an acre of durum or barley. Cotton, durum, or barley is rotated between non-grafted watermelons. If adequate rotation acreage is not available for planting non-grafted watermelons, the imputed value for a grafted watermelon transplant is $1.40 or about 10% above their imputed cost, suggesting grafting will play a more prominent role in the U.S., like in European and Asian countries, if land becomes more scarce.
• Tronstad, R. E., Teegerstrom, T., & Schuch, U. K. (2015, Sept). Growing the Management Skills of Native American and Limited-Resource Beginning Farmers in the Southwest. 2015 Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program and Federally Recognized Tribal Extension Program. Reno, NV: USDA NIFA.
• Lewis, M., Kubota, C., & Tronstad, R. (2012, October). Scenario-Based Economic Analyses of Different Grafting Operation Sizes. 2012 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.

Others

• Scheitrum, D., Chin, E., Duval, D., Tronstad, R. E., Thompson, G., & Aradhyula, S. (2020, 10). Electronic Storymap and report on Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Fresh Tomato Shipments and Prices. Fresh Produce Association of the Americas.
  More info

  Electronic storymap and report
• Tronstad, R. E., Cannon, K. G., Wright, A. D., & Cannon, K. O. (2018, September). Economics of Culling or Feeding Cows During Drought. Arizona Cattlelog.
• Teegerstrom, T., & Tronstad, R. E. (2017, March 24, 2017). Arizona Ranching Budgets: 2016. UA Cooperative Extension Publication #az1734.
• Tronstad, R. E. (2017, November). Pasture Rangeland Forage -- Rainfall Index. Arizona Range and Livestock Newsletter. http://uacals.org/3xp
• Tronstad, R. E., Kerna, A., Frisvold, G. B., & Teegerstrom, T. (2014, May). The Contribution of the Beef Industry to the Arizona Economy. http://ag.arizona.edu/arec/pubs/beefindustryeconcontrib.html
• Teegerstrom, T. -., Nakamoto, S., & Tronstad, R. E. (2013, June). Producer Business Checkup. Univeristy of Hawaii Cooperative Extension Bulletin.
• Teegerstrom, T., Tronstad, R., & Nakamoto, S. (2013, January). An Overview of Risk Management Agency Insurance Products and Farm Service Agency Programs Available for Arizona Producers as of December 2012 Arizona Cooperative Extension Bulletin. Arizona Coop. Extension Publication, AZ1587, January 2013.