BARK. 



49 



were submitted to the Division of Chemistry of the Department of 

 Agriculture and the following results were obtained: 



Table 18. — Analyses of bark of Western Hemlock from Washington. 



Moisture 



Total solids 



Soluble solids 



Reds 



Nontannins 



Available tannins 



W ly fiber by difference 



No. 21272. 



Little 



Rock, 



Thurston 



County. 



Per cent. 



9.87 



14. 32 



13. 78 



.54 



4.01 



9.77 



75. 79 



No. 21273. No. 21274. 



Ashford, Enumclaw, 



Pierce King 



County. County. 



Per cent. 

 10. 55 

 24. 03 

 22. 59 

 1.41 

 6.59 

 16.00 

 65. 42 



Per cent. 

 10.01 

 22. 16 

 20. 58 

 1.58 

 5.72 

 14.86 

 67.83 



In his report upon these analyses Dr. Wiley, Chemist of the Depart- 

 ment of Agriculture, says: 



Nos. 21273 and 21274 are especially remarkable on account of being so rich in 

 tannin. These barks are all of superior quality, especially the two just mentioned. 



These two samples probably represent fairly the bark of the west- 

 ern slope of the Cascades, Enumclaw being about 1,000 feet and Ash- 

 ford 2,000 feet above sea level. v The Little Rock sample is apparently 

 inferior, but can scarcely be regarded as representative, since it was 

 taken from a fallen tree which had been exposed to heavy rains for 

 several weeks. It is not improbable that a fresh sample would have 

 compared favorably with the other two specimens. 



In Hide and Leather, of June 24, 1893, appear the results of tests 

 made by H. G. Tabor, manager of the American Extract Works, of 

 Port Allegheny, Pa., which are as follows: 



Table 19.— Comparative analyses of Hemlock bark from Washington, Pennsylvania, and 



Quebec. 



Another analysis richer in tannin than cither of the preceding was 

 furnished by Professor Fiebing, of Milwaukee, to persons who con 

 templated starting an extract factory near the coast in southwestern 

 Washington. He found the percentage of tannin in the two samples 

 sent him to be L7.8 and 20.1, respectively. Allowing 2.240 pounds to 

 22< >2t >— No. : ;: ! — ( 12 4 



