OK. So are you just in this thread to drop names like Mammoth and Apogee? Because it would be helpful if you could add something that we don't already know. Or maybe ask genuine questions instead of just "product placement".
There is another reason we have no plans to add 530nm diodes to our products and that is one of efficiency. Green is valuable to human lighting because the human eye perceives green (around 555nm) brighter than other colours (blue, then red). But green diodes are the least efficient of the three RGB colours. They are half the theoretical maximum efficiency of 660nm and less than half of 450nm blue. They are less than 2/3 the efficiency of white phosphor diodes (~5000K) that already contain a significant amount of green phosphor. We already use 5000K white diodes for this reason.
When looking at the value of a diode in relation ot horticultural spectrum, there are a number of things to consider:
Overall efficiency – some diodes are more efficient than others, which means they convert more energy to light (and less to heat), which is a good thing. Except . . .
Photosynthetic efficiency – the most efficient diode colour is not necessarily the most efficient driver of photosynthesis. Red is the most efficient, followed by blue, followed by green (the exact opposite of human-centric lighting that weights green, blue and red in that order). Except . . .
Photomorphology – Far red diodes have a theoretical energy efficiency in line with white phosphor diodes, but until recently were thought to have little photosynthetic value (something we have known a long time – at least 3-4 years before Bugbee started spruiking his Apogee ePAR meters). But not only does it have photosynthetic value by boosting the efficiency of red light (Emerson Effect) – as well as regulating the flowering cycle (which can accelerate flowering), it causes cell expansion which can be desireable if you steer it towards larger leaf surface area that can capture more photons (and compound photosynthesis). It can also cause a moderate amount of internodal stretch to allow better light penetration of the entire plant. Conversely, blue is very efficient (in terms of energy consumption and photosynthesis), but it causes cell contraction, which is not always a desirable trait in the plants you are growing (it stunts growth and reduces fowering yield). However, you may want to use blue light to keep your plants compact, or produce thicker leaves (edible leafy greens) or boost by-products of photosynthesis which include . .
Secondary metabolites – These are all the things plants produce that are not primary metabilites used for growth, reproduction and plant health. Some secondary metabolites – such as cannabinoids and terpenes – are desirable. And studies have shown that some wavelengths such as deep blue, violet and ultra-violet can stimulate secondary metabolite production. However, this usually comes at the expense of primary metabolite production, which means there is a trade-off between "quality" and "quantity".
Which brings us back to green light. It is the most ineffcient colour to produce (except as a by-product of white phopsphor technology), it is the most efficient colour to photosynthesise (penetrates leaves deeper), it has the least abosorption (most of it is reflected), but it has the most canopy penetration (apart from far red light, which penetrates further). It does not appear to have any photomorphogenic value.
So what is the argument for using more green over red or blue or UVA or far red light . . . or an optimal combination of all spectra? Are you getting more yield, or does that come at the cost of more energy consumption? Does it accelerate flowering? Does it produce more secondary metabolites? What is the total outcome of all these variables?
Go watch a couple of YouTube videos on growing under each colour to see the answer. Here's one to get you started:
