Cork dairy giant Carbery invests €700k in new research trial on farms
The Farm Zero C initiative aims to create a blueprint for an economically viable, sustainable, and carbon neutral dairy farming model.
Carbery is partnering with Climate KIC, a leading European climate innovation agency, to trial the new technologies on farms. The technologies will include a treatment for improving manure management and satellite technology to map biodiversity, and expanding the research underway as part of Farm Zero C.
'We've seen first-hand through Farm Zero C and through the outcomes of our FutureProof sustainability bonus (where farmers are paid a premium to implement certain sustainability initiatives on their farms), that cutting emissions and maintaining profitability can go hand in hand,' said Carbery director of sustainability Enda Buckley. 'This project gives us the opportunity to bring these practical solutions to more farmers, faster.'
Methane from enteric fermentation and manure management accounts for over two-thirds of Ireland's agricultural emissions, and almost 20% of the country's overall greenhouse gas emissions. The initiative will prioritise 'ready now' innovations, to reduce methane emissions rapidly while retaining profitability. These technologies include Glasport Bio's Slurry Abate system.
The wider Farm Zero C project is also looking at funding models and financial supports to make methane reduction technologies more affordable for farmers. Finance innovator and not-for profit Bankers without Boundaries will assist in exploring financial mechanisms like carbon payments, green loans, and cooperative incentive schemes.
The first year of the programme announced this week will focus on trialling technologies, building collaboration with the 10 farmers, collecting baseline data, and developing viable financial and narrative models. In year two, these insights will be scaled, and a second farmer cohort onboarded.
'We have been seeing what works on one farm, as part of Farm Zero C. This project is about taking what has been tested on one farm and bringing it to more of them. We will see then what works practically and what will actually make a difference to the average farmer," said John O'Donoghue, one of the farmers who will be participating in this trial.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
a day ago
- Irish Examiner
John Whelan: Ireland's financial sector needs a new strategy to meet the Four D challenge
Finance minister Paschal Donohoe believes Ireland's financial services industry needs a new strategy and has launched a consultation paper, 'Ireland for Finance Strategy 2026-2030'. In introducing it, the minister coined a new catchphrase, the Four Ds — deglobalisation, digitalisation, decarbonisation, and demographics. He says his department recognises the Four Ds are reshaping the global economy and resulting in a complex set of challenges for the financial services industry, a key platform of growth in the Irish economy over the past decade. Brexit benefits Brexit supercharged the Irish financial services industry as UK-based corporations shifted their European offices to Dublin to ensure they could continue a free flow of assets and funds across the EU. According to data from EY's financial services Brexit tracker, at the end of 2021, over 400 UK financial services role relocations to Europe were announced, taking the total number of jobs leaving London to maintain access to EU markets to over 7,500 to date. The financial services boost from the Brexit shift from London to Dublin has continued, and the sector now employs 140,000 people in Ireland, 60,000 of them in the IFSC — now ranked the third leading financial centre in Western Europe, after London and Frankfurt, according to the global financial centres index. Financial services The financial services industry is big business for Ireland, with over €4.9 trillion in assets under management. More than 1,000 fund managers from 50-plus countries have assets administered in Ireland, including 17 of the top 20 global asset managers. But the minister is right: The challenges of the Four Ds could derail the sector. The deglobalisation strategy being pursued by the Trump administration in so many areas as they drive to 'make America great again' could be shifted at any time from tariffs on products made outside the US, to a focus on financial services, with a demand on US corporations to bring home service jobs to the US. What gives these teeth is that a significant number of those employed in the Irish financial services sector are in US banks such as Citibank, Bank of America, JPMorgan, and US Bancorp. But many jobs in the sector are created by US tech companies located here, such as Airbnb, eBay, Facebook, Indeed, LinkedIn, Microsoft, PayPal, X, (Twitter) and Google. Fragmented landscape for foreign firms The changed geopolitical environment, fuelled by the Trump administration's protectionist agenda, has fed into other countries taking a similar strategy, resulting in a fragmented landscape for international corporations located in the IFSC. And whereas digitalisation will continue to reshape how financial services businesses operate, the need to keep up to speed in the AI and cybersecurity space will be challenging, requiring trained staff with a fusion of technology and financial skills at a premium. At the heart of decarbonisation and the associated green transition are the commitments of Ireland and the EU on climate and sustainability objectives. These present fresh challenges as the Trump administration pivots towards continuity of fossil fuels. Pivot from green agenda Pivoting away from the green agenda is already underway, particularly with US corporations, leaving many in the financial services sector who have been channelling investment towards projects aimed at meeting these sustainability objectives in an embarrassing bind. Demographic challenges in the EU and, in particular, in Ireland, are also impacting the sector. These range from low female participation to population ageing, and a shrinking working-age population. But perhaps the most intractable challenge is that the need for acceptance of more ethnic diversity in our working population will increasingly be necessary to support employment in all sectors, in particular in the financial services sector. However, the minister is probably aware of these challenges and is more interested in getting some indications of where the opportunities are in financial services. He is asking all stakeholders in the sector to submit their views by September 19 on how Ireland can maintain and grow its position as a leading global hub for international financial services. Top of the list is likely to be homegrown 'unicorns', startups that have reached a valuation of €1bn or more. Some prominent Irish examples include Intercom, Fenergo, TransferMate, Wayflyer, and of course Stripe.
RTÉ News
a day ago
- RTÉ News
Love of Pod: Has Nespresso been good or bad for coffee?
When US President Donald Trump last week announced plans for a 39% tariff on Swiss imports, he blindsided politicians in the picturesque European state. Swiss officials were reportedly convinced they had secured a 10% rate – but in the end were faced with a tariff that was higher even than the 31% rate proposed on 'Liberation Day' in April. And one of the companies likely to bear the brunt of that stinging rate is consumer goods behemoth Nestlé – particularly via its premium coffee pod brand 'Nespresso'. That is actually the underdog in the US coffee pod market – trailing the dominant Keurig system. But it's rapidly gaining ground. In 2013 Nespresso had a 3% market share in the US; but by 2023 that had risen to more than 14%. But the prospect of tariff-induced price rises could stifle that growth – which would represent a rare blip in what has been the remarkable growth of the coffee pod brand. Though the story of Nespresso probably starts a lot earlier than you realise. How so? Most people would think of a Nespresso machine as a very 21st century appliance – but the system was actually invented in 1975 and patented by Nestlé in 1976. However it was too complicated and cumbersome to be economically viable for at least a decade – with the first commercial units not being launched until the mid-to-late 1980s. And when they did arrive, they looked almost identical to regular espresso machines – down to having a portafilter where the pods went in. And Nespresso remained a fairly niche product through to the mid-to-late 90s, at which point things began to change. One of the important factors behind that shift was the fact that Nestlé began to sign deals with appliance makers like Siemens, Philips and De'Longhi, which started to make Nespresso machines of their own. That made them more accessible and affordable (and ultimately smaller and more countertop-friendly, too). In the early 2000s, Nestlé also started opening retail outlets – and really it's at this point that the concept took off. And it's become a huge success since then... Massive – it's hard to find figures on this but there are certainly tens, if not hundreds of millions of Nespresso machines in use around the world today. It dominates the coffee pod market in Europe – even though there are alternatives like Tassimo (which is made by JDE Peet's) and Dolce Gusto (confusingly, made by Nestlé). While it is enjoying rapid growth in the US and other markets. As a result, there's huge demand for pods. There was a figure from 2020 which claimed Nestlé sold 14 billion pods a year – and it's probably even higher now. That's reflected in the fact that Nespresso had revenues of the equivalent of €3.4 billion in the first half of this year. But that 14 billion pod-sales figure doesn't even properly reflect the popularity of the system. Because, given that it was invented in the mid-70s, Nestlé's patents on the system actually began expiring in 2012 – just as it was properly reaching mainstream appeal. That ultimately meant that other companies could start making and selling Nespresso-compatible pods and machines without needing approval from Nestlé, or without having to pay them a licencing fee. Nestlé did try to fight that in the courts for a while but lost – which is why you can see a range of non-Nestlé pods in supermarkets today. The only thing companies have to be careful about is not giving consumers the impression that they're official pods – which is why it can often be so hard to find the words 'Nespresso-compatible' on the packaging. But ultimately that array of third party options means that there are likely billions more pods being sold each year - across a range of other coffee brands – on top of what Nestlé sell directly. In a way the Nespresso has become the 21st Century's Maxwell House – because it's now the baseline for an at-home coffee. If you go to a friend's house and they offer you a coffee – even if they're not enough of a coffee drinker to have an expensive espresso machine or a bag of fresh coffee – there's a good chance that they'll have a Nespresso machine, instead of a crusty jar of instant. The same goes for hotels – in a lot of places the Nespresso machine has replaced the bundle of instant coffee sachets stacked next to the kettle. How has it managed to become so ubiquitous? Part of the success has been down to their use of what you might call the 'razor blade' or 'printer ink' approach to sales. Because Nestlé made a decision relatively early on to keep the price of the machines low in order to make them accessible to consumers – focusing on the pods as a way of making profit. The logic here being that if you make it easy for a customer to buy into your ecosystem, it will take a lot for them to decide to leave. Though, now that customers can easily buy non-Nestlé pods, that model has become less lucrative. And that's part of the reason why in 2014 - just two years after their patents started to expire - Nestlé brought out a new version of Nespresso. Called the 'Vertuo' system, it uses bigger, dome-shaped pods – and the machine spins them, claiming the centrifugal force helps get better flavour extraction. Many coffee experts have dismissed the value of this technique, but it is unique enough to allow Nestlé to patent it. That means no-one else can make pods to fit this system, so consumers have to go to Nestlé for their coffee (for the next four or five years at least). And that, in turn, is part of the reason why you can often buy a technically newer Vertuo-compatible machine for less than one that fits the old-style pods. There's now less of an incentive on Nestlé to subsidise the old pod system. But aside from making machines affordable, another crucial thing that Nestlé did in building the Nespresso brand was to go up-market. Rather than liken itself to instant coffee, Nestlé pitched Nespresso as a machine that could give users café-quality coffee in the home. And by doing this it justified charging much more per-drink. A single Nespresso pod might cost you somewhere in the region of 50-60c, for example, which is a lot when you compare it to the 8-12c per serving you'd likely get from a jar of instant. But if, in your mind, you're comparing it to the €4-5 coffee you get in your local cafe, then that 50c seems like a total bargain. And it didn't do them any harm to have George Clooney either... Not at all. He initially came on board in 2006, at first as the face of the brand in Europe. In 2015 the deal was extended to cover the US market too. And he's been credited as a key driving force in helping Nespresso to rapidly gain ground in the US (the fact that the Vertuo machine can make larger coffees has also helped). Needless to say, Clooney has done well from the deal too – he's reportedly paid $40m. Although it's not clear over what time-frame that is. In the 19 years of his relationship with Nestlé, he's sure to have earned a lot more. And that – along with some of his other business deals, like the sale of his tequila brand to Diageo, has meant that he is continually one of the world's highest paid actors - even in years that he hasn't actually made any films. For his part, he's previously said that the money from the Nespresso ads has gone towards funding a spy satellite that's monitoring human rights abuses on the Sudan and South Sudan border. Though it's been more than a decade since he said that, so it's not clear if it's still the case. Either way it has shielded him somewhat from the criticism that Nespresso and Nestlé in general has faced. These pods, while popular, are very controversial too... Absolutely – and that's aside from the string of controversies that Nestlé has been linked to over the years. When it comes to Nespresso in particular, there has been evidence of child labour found at coffee farms used by the brand as recently as 2020. That is an issue the company has repeatedly pledged to tackle. There is also the environmental impact of the system – because the pods are of course creating packaging that just didn't exist in coffee making before. Each Nespresso pod is encased in roughly one gram of aluminium – some other companies might use other materials, but aluminium tends to be the most popular, even with third parties. And while a gram of packaging might not seem like a lot, across 14 billion pods you're looking at 14,000 tonnes of packaging being created from official Nespresso-branded pods alone. Aluminium is recyclable and the grounds inside are biodegradable – but most people are not going to take the time to cut the pods open, clean them out and dispose of them properly. That kind of undermines the convenience that makes the pods so attractive to people. In response to this issue Nespresso has set up a recycling return programme, where customers get an empty packet they can put their used pods in and then post them to Nestlé to be disposed of properly. But by Nespresso's own admission, just one third of the pods it sells are getting returned – and that of course does not include the waste created by the pods made by other brands. Some customers also argue that the scheme is impractical, because it takes time to fill each bag – in which time the pods begin to get mouldy and smelly. So in reality, for most people, their pods just go in the bin – unlike a more traditional espresso, where the used coffee might go in the compost bin. Although there is an interesting counter-argument on Nespresso's environmental impact. This suggests that they could actually be better for the environment than a coffee made in an espresso machine or moka pot or cafetiere. The argument points out that the biggest source of emissions in coffee is from the growing, harvesting, roasting and transportation of the beans – not the packaging. And when consumers use ground coffee they may end up putting too much in – or making a bigger pot than they need, leading to them throwing some of it out. As a result, their per-cup footprint is bigger than it should be - unlike a Nespresso pod, which uses a precise amount of coffee per pod (and it's actually slightly less than you'd use in a single shot of regular espresso – another way Nestlé squeezes out extra value). But even with that in mind, it's hard to look past the fact that these bits of aluminium weren't part of the coffee-making process 20 or 30 years ago – but now they are, and the majority of that ends up going in the bin. In general, what's happening to coffee prices? There were warnings earlier this year that the already high price for a cup of coffee in a café was going to rise further towards the end of the year. That was based on a dramatic rise in the price of coffee on commodity markets, though it has eased off considerably since April. There are a range of factors behind that – for example climate change is impacting harvest yields in the likes of Brazil and India, where most of our coffee comes from. There have also been rising wages and rising transportation costs throughout the global supply chain. But while the price of beans is being impacted by very real things like poor harvests and rising costs, it's also being impacted by markets. Coffee is traded a commodity – and traders will make bets on where they think the price will go, and their bets can in turn push up the price that's paid in the real world. Last month the CEO of Italian coffee company Lavazza suggested that hedge funds were to blame for 80% of the price increases that had been seen in the price of coffee over the past four years.
Irish Independent
a day ago
- Irish Independent
Steve Dempsey: Big Tech bleating about EU AI rules little more than a fear of a basic level of oversight and respect for copyright
At the heart of much of the discussion here is whether the need for AI innovation trumps existing copyright laws. The US sees itself in an AI race with China, while Europe has been more focused on protecting citizens and existing rights. The European Commission recently published implementation guidelines relating to the EU AI act. These include details of legal obligations for the safe use of AI, copyright protections for creators, and transparency rules around how AI models are trained. As Europe has a track record of creating de facto rules for the West around tech legislation, it's worth understanding how these implementation guidelines have been greeted. Last week a consortium that represents rights holders from across the media, music, film & TV, books and publishing and art worlds came out against the AI guidelines. Ironically, there isn't a creative name among the host of acronyms representing the creative industries. There's AEPO-ARTIS, BIEM, CISAC, ECSA, FIM, GESAC, ICMP, IMPALA and more. Their point is clear, though. In an open letter, they claim that the European Commission's official guidance on the copyright and transparency obligations contained in the EU AI Act favours tech companies over creators and copyright owners. Their concern is that the new AI regulations will solely benefit the AI companies that scrape their copyrighted content without permission to build and train models. The letter says: 'We are contending with the seriously detrimental situation of generative AI companies taking our content without authorisation on an industrial scale in order to develop their AI models. Their actions result in illegal commercial gains and unfair competitive advantages for their AI models, services, and products, in violation of European copyright laws.' Big tech, which seems to have more lobbying muscle than coding muscle these days, is not presenting a unified front. Google has said it will sign the EU's AI code of practice but warned that the Act and the Code could make Europe an AI laggard. Kent Walker, president of global affairs and chief legal officer at Google's parent company Alphabet, ominously warned: 'Departures from EU copyright law, steps that slow approvals, or requirements that expose trade secrets could chill European model development and deployment, harming Europe's competitiveness.' OpenAI and the French artificial intelligence company, Mistral are also onboard. And Microsoft will more than likely sign too. But Meta, Facebook's parent company, is against the code. They believe it introduces a number of legal uncertainties for model developers and measures that go beyond the scope of the AI Act. Like Google, they're warning that this will throttle the development and deployment of frontier AI models in Europe, and stunt European companies looking to build businesses on top of them. Facebook knows all about how to use FOMO. And it's working. There's been another open letter, this time from the chief executives of large European companies, including Airbus and BNP Paribas, urging a two-year pause by Brussels and warning that unclear and overlapping regulations were threatening the bloc's competitiveness in the global AI race. With all these talking heads, commercial imperative and AI hype cycle, it's easy to forget what all this hot air is about. The issue here is Article 53 of the AI act that introduces transparency into the heart of general-purpose AI model deployment. This article stipulates that AI providers must create and maintain detailed technical documentation covering the AI model's design, development, training data, evaluation, testing, intended tasks, architecture, licensing and energy metrics. All of this must be available to the EU AI Office and national authorities on request. It also must be available in relation to any other downstream systems that integrate the model in question. Article 53 also ensures model providers adhere to EU copyright law and must publicly publish a detailed summary of the training data used. This aims to shed light on datasets, sources, and potential inclusion of copyrighted material. So really, all this quibbling boils down to a level of transparency, societal oversight and a respect for copyright. It's understandable that technology companies are bristling. China isn't tying itself up in this level of bureaucracy, right? The EU's history with tech regulation, such as the GDPR, have often set up roadblocks for users rather than truly protecting privacy. And there's a significant opportunity cost to complying with this level of oversight. How is big tech supposed to move fast and break things with European technocrats looking over their shoulders? But then again, maybe that's the point. When it comes to a technology that might take all our jobs or wipe us all out – depending on who you talk to – maybe a bit of technocratic oversight isn't a bad thing? We know from recent history what happens if Silicon Valley's needs are put ahead of society's. Perhaps the artists and creators who have warned against favouring big tech capital over copyright aren't just protecting their own livelihoods. They're doing us all a favour.
