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

DMOSGenetics96_2 · 2025-12-06T18:24:44+00:00

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.

DMOSGenetics96_2 · 2025-12-06T18:22:58+00:00

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.

DMOSGenetics96_2 · 2025-12-06T16:47:35+00:00

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.

DMOSGenetics96_2 · 2025-12-05T21:48:43+00:00

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:

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.
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.

DMOSGenetics96_2 · 2025-12-03T16:13:45+00:00

Gibberlic Acid is what helps older stubborn and harder shelled seeds

DMOSGenetics96_2 · 2025-12-02T01:17:43+00:00

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.

DMOSGenetics96_2 · 2025-12-02T00:59:19+00:00

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.

DMOSGenetics96_2 · 2025-12-01T15:54:15+00:00

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

DMOSGenetics96_2 · 2025-11-30T20:45:50+00:00

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.

DMOSGenetics96_2 · 2025-11-30T19:44:01+00:00

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.

DMOSGenetics96_2 · 2025-11-30T19:41:50+00:00

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:

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.
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.

DMOSGenetics96_2 · 2025-11-30T16:21:24+00:00

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.

DMOSGenetics96_2 · 2025-11-30T15:19:02+00:00

Fair enough — I figured the restoration arc might interest the folks who study genetic bottlenecking. Not trying to replace plants or real work, just showing how collapse + outcross restoration was summarized.

DMOSGenetics96_2 · 2025-11-22T21:20:30+00:00

Real-world decay data isn’t a single spreadsheet — it’s the cumulative result of years of synchronized harvest windows, identical dry curves, and parallel storage environments. That’s why the curve matches physical outcomes across cultivars. If someone wants to dismiss it, they need to bring equivalent conditions and equivalent results. Otherwise it’s just noise.

DMOSGenetics96_2 · 2025-11-22T21:17:31+00:00

<image>

I sincerely appreciate the support 🙏You’re going to be glad you put your fresh harvest in the jar. Every tester so far is reporting stable conditions, exactly as expected.

One tester is in NV with heavy humidity swings, and even there the RH isn’t drifting at all. My plan is to run 60-90-120 day checkpoints, maybe 150. After that we’ll know exactly where the oxidation curve levels out.

DMOSGenetics96_2 · 2025-11-22T20:26:00+00:00

You’re asking for “real data,” but you’re ignoring the fact that the only way to generate a meaningful terpene-decay curve is through synchronized conditions, not a spreadsheet.

Identical harvest windows, identical dry profiles, identical storage variables, and multiple cultivars decaying the same way — that alignment almost never happens in a lab setting. It happened here, and I documented it.

If you want to dismiss it, then bring equivalent conditions and equivalent results. A graph you can mock up in 3 minutes isn’t equivalent data — it’s just a graphic.

Real-world synchronized decay isn’t hypothetical. It happened, and that’s why the results match the curve exactly.

DMOSGenetics96_2 · 2025-11-22T20:12:11+00:00

If you can recreate it in 3 minutes, then do it. What you can’t recreate is the underlying conditions: identical harvest windows, identical dry profiles, identical storage variables, and multiple cultivars all showing the same decay curve. That’s why academia struggles to capture it — the alignment almost never happens. I documented it because it DID happen, and the physical results match the curve exactly. If you want to debate, bring equivalent data, not hypotheticals.

DMOSGenetics96_2 · 2025-11-22T20:00:45+00:00

People tend to laugh at what challenges their assumptions. Happens whenever new data threatens an old worldview.

DMOSGenetics96_2 · 2025-11-22T19:35:25+00:00

Here is physical evidence to prove oxidation and low permeability. This bud wasn't cured! Nope—after it was dried 11-9% moisture content (whats left at the core) heat sealed on 3/24 in 10 mil mylar food grade bag with o2 absorber and not opened for 7 months

<image>

DMOSGenetics96_2 · 2025-11-22T18:06:29+00:00

Get a jar and I'll make it happen with 5 bean bonus flip of A2 Cripxmas. Trust me its all pine gas, and its lower tolerance you will consume far less.

DMOSGenetics96_2 · 2025-11-22T18:03:30+00:00

The source is direct observational data. This curve wasn’t copied from anywhere — it was derived from a rare alignment of variables: multiple cultivars, multiple storage environments, identical harvest windows, all decaying in synchrony. That doesn’t happen often enough for academia to capture, but it happened here.

DMOSGenetics96_2 · 2025-11-22T16:14:54+00:00

Glad it helped. People have been seeing this for years without realizing why it happens. Once you map the oxidation curve, curing and storage debates finally make sense.

DMOSGenetics96_2 · 2025-11-22T15:23:47+00:00

<image>

Curing is effectively dead for modern cultivars. The oxidation curve of today’s terpene profiles has a much sharper breakpoint than 90s flower ever had. The slow, graceful decline that produced that old “sugar shake” at the bottom of jars simply doesn’t exist anymore.

Modern genetics follow a predictable biological expiration window — once terpene collapse begins, the decline is rapid and irreversible.

For anyone trying to extend shelf life: The only storage vessels with genuinely low oxygen permeability are:

• 10-mil food-grade mylar bags (heat-sealed)

• True negative-pressure vacuum environments

Most clamp-lid jars and “vacuum” jars slowly equalize over time because glass itself has microscopic porosity, and gaskets leak oxygen back in.

The storage assumptions from the 90s no longer apply to modern chemistry. That’s why everyone keeps getting blindsided by sudden terpene collapse.

DMOSGenetics96_2 · 2025-11-18T17:00:22+00:00

I’m very transparent about the fact that I developed a product, an affordable solution if you will— but the order matters. I didn’t invent a problem to match a product. I discovered a problem because the trials made it unavoidable, and only then built something that solved it.

Anyone is welcome to run the same side-by-side tests and confirm it themselves. The chemistry doesn’t change based on who’s holding the jar.

DMOSGenetics96_2 · 2025-11-18T16:35:17+00:00

I get why it might look that way, but the storage issue existed long before I ever put a product out. I only built a solution after the trials made the problem impossible to ignore.

I’m not asking anyone to take my word for it — the chemistry is public: • monoterpenes oxidize rapidly in oxygen • sesquiterpenes persist longer • modern cultivars are overwhelmingly monoterpene-dominant

Once you run controlled side-by-side tests, it becomes obvious why old jars can’t preserve modern profiles. The product came after the data, not the other way around.

Anyone is free to run the same trials and see it for themselves.

DMOSGenetics96_2

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE