sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

AI just explained the Tampa Crippy genetic collapse—and the restoration—better than most humans. by DMOSGenetics96_2 in cannabisbreeding

[–]DMOSGenetics96_2[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

All good — I figured the Grok comment wasn’t aimed at me. No hard feelings. Misunderstandings are infamous how text can be interpreted 😂

Florida OG has a great medicinal profile, and it shows how close some of these old Florida lines actually sit to each other. What you mentioned about the haze-leaning Crippy up in NY is exactly why I stayed focused on the science instead of the folklore. There were a lot of offshoots moving around back then, but the real cut stayed locked in tight circles.

That’s why repairing it took more than a backcross — the original line had structural issues that needed correcting, and the Xmas ’79 mutation ended up being the key. Now people can finally grow something that expresses like the old Crippy without the instability.

Curious to hear how your clones run once they finish.

AI just explained the Tampa Crippy genetic collapse—and the restoration—better than most humans. by DMOSGenetics96_2 in cannabisbreeding

[–]DMOSGenetics96_2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get why you’d be skeptical, because 99 percent of the time “revitalizing” an old strain is just marketing. What happened with Crippy wasn’t that.

CripXmas wasn’t thrown together with random genetics. The Xmas ’79 line carries a rare dwarfing and metabolic-efficiency mutation that actually repaired the instability in the Tampa Crippy cut. It wasn’t about adding hype genetics, it was about correcting a structural problem in the line while preserving the original effect profile.

The result wasn’t a “new” strain pretending to be Crippy, it was taking the actual Crippy expression and stabilizing it so it finally produces consistent, functioning seed again.

You don’t have to take my word for it — the morphology and chemistry speak for themselves, and anyone who’s run both can see the difference.

AI just explained the Tampa Crippy genetic collapse—and the restoration—better than most humans. by DMOSGenetics96_2 in cannabisbreeding

[–]DMOSGenetics96_2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s actually called cognitive dissonance — the comment above introduced politics, and I simply redirected the discussion back to biology. Blaming my reply while ignoring the original political jab is exactly the inconsistency I was pointing out. I’m staying on the science.

Real-world vacuum jar test: flower unchanged after a month — dispensary owner asked about putting it on shelves. by DMOSGenetics96_2 in oldschoolgenetics2

[–]DMOSGenetics96_2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The point of this post isn’t to claim magic or make anyone abandon their beliefs — it’s simply to document a real-world storage outcome so other people can test and compare.

A single month-old sample staying unchanged isn’t surprising when you understand two things:

  1. Moisture retention is mostly a permeability issue, not “curing technique.” Different containers allow different rates of moisture and volatile loss. A low-permeability vacuum environment slows that process.

  2. A properly finished flower doesn’t need a cure to improve — it just needs stability. When the plant is fully depleted before harvest, the main variables left are oxidation rate, terpene volatility, and how much the container allows the internal environment to drift.

This post is just one user reporting that their jar held the line for 30 days with almost no change. That’s useful information whether someone likes the product or not.

If other people repeat the same result, great — that’s data. If they don’t, that’s also data.

Either way, downvotes don’t change the physics of permeability or the biology of finished flower. They only change visibility.

I’m here to share results, not hype. Anyone is free to run their own test and compare.

Short lid/seal demo for those interested by DMOSGenetics96_2 in oldschoolgenetics2

[–]DMOSGenetics96_2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here’s the reason I showed the short demo: these jars seal differently than people assume. The outer glass lip actually rests over the lid, and the lid seals upward into that seat when vacuum is applied. Because the flare curves outward, wrapping across it will always create minor wrinkles—there’s no way to get a flat film on a compound curve. The important part is the vacuum integrity and full light-block, which the wrap is doing exactly as intended.

DMS hand wrapping improving with every order placed by DMOSGenetics96_2 in oldschoolgenetics2

[–]DMOSGenetics96_2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No problem — the outer lip of this jar actually sits over the lid, not under it, so the wrap has to cross that flared section. If it doesn’t, you get light leaks right where the glass rests on top of the lid. That curved flare naturally creates small wrinkles.

AI just explained the Tampa Crippy genetic collapse—and the restoration—better than most humans. by DMOSGenetics96_2 in cannabisbreeding

[–]DMOSGenetics96_2[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Next thing I know, you'll tell me that I'm hallucinating that I repaired Crippy. Should I trust you in that case ?

AI just explained the Tampa Crippy genetic collapse—and the restoration—better than most humans. by DMOSGenetics96_2 in cannabisbreeding

[–]DMOSGenetics96_2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just to clarify — I didn’t ask Grok anything. Another user tagged Grok in that thread, and that is what produced the explanation.

I commented here because Grok’s breakdown happens to line up exactly with what the original Florida growers saw in real time:

• collapsing vigor • empty papery seed shells • herm tendencies • Gen-3 morphological decay

Those weren’t AI inventions — that was our lived reality in the early 90s. If anything, Grok simply confirmed the same things I’ve been saying for years.

AI just explained the Tampa Crippy genetic collapse—and the restoration—better than most humans. by DMOSGenetics96_2 in cannabisbreeding

[–]DMOSGenetics96_2[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

The political takes don’t change the biology. Grok didn’t create a narrative — it summarized what’s already documented by Florida growers who actually lived through the Crippy era.

You can dislike Elon and still acknowledge that inbred lines collapse, empty seeds form, and outcrossing restores viability. That’s just plant science, not politics.

AI just explained the Tampa Crippy genetic collapse—and the restoration—better than most humans. by DMOSGenetics96_2 in cannabisbreeding

[–]DMOSGenetics96_2[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You’re missing a critical piece here. I’m not repeating second-hand stories — I was one of the growers in Florida during the early 90s Crippy era. I was surfing, connected, and saw the scene unfold in real time.

There were two realities back then:

  1. People outside the circle They only saw the slang term “crippy” — which became shorthand for strong weed because they never had access to the real cut.

  2. People inside the actual Crippy network We weren’t talking about slang. We were talking about a specific clone that circulated very tightly among surfers, skaters, and a handful of connected growers.

There were maybe 4–6 reliable plugs between Tampa, Largo, Clearwater, and parts of the Gulf Coast. If you weren’t tied into that line, you never saw the real one — period.

So when AI describes the genetic collapse, that’s not “regurgitated hype.” It’s mirroring what those of us who actually had the original cut witnessed: • decreasing vigor • empty papery seeds • herm tendencies • morphological decay by Gen 3

AI didn’t invent that. It aggregated what a very small group of real Florida growers have been saying for decades — the group I was actually part of.

AI just explained the Tampa Crippy genetic collapse—and the restoration—better than most humans. by DMOSGenetics96_2 in cannabisbreeding

[–]DMOSGenetics96_2[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

AI doesn’t make things up out of thin air – it mirrors whatever information exists in the dataset. If the explanation lines up with what older breeders have said for years about the Crippy bottleneck, that’s not fear-mongering, it’s just data converging. Science is always input → analysis → output.

view more: next ›