Nope, there was nothing clearly visible between the stuff that popped off and the pristine sapwood beneath it, I've used this technique a few times now and IMO it's the best way to get a perfect clean back.
I've just looked up the two terms and maybe the term Cambium has been misused and it's the Phloem... but whatever the name the effect is the same.
In the regions where it doesn't pop off there is sometimes a V thin layer, with a pinkish brown tinge which becomes more obvious with time/weathering. Maybe this is the actual Cambium, but in that case when the thicker Phloem pops off it is generally bringing the cambium with it.
I have to agree we should be exact in our description else there is a danger of spreading missinformation (which will follow us like a plague if the Paul Simon lyrics are correct
http://www.paulsimon.com/us/music/paul-simon/peace-river )
I shall look further into it.
Just seen your document and I think it may be wrong, and it is at best incomplete! I shall read further.
Ha, just found this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phloem it refers (in the numbered illustration to the right) to the 'bast' which interestingly is what they say is visible on some of the Mary Rose bows.
I fear we are in danger of getting bogged down by exactitude, when we both mean the fibrous inner layers between bark and sapwood.
The article says it is the Phloem which carries the nutrients (not the sapwood which your doc states), and that is what I had always believed.
After all the sapwood isn't wet and slippery, it's the layer just above it...
DAMN!
Here's an article about sugar Maple that says the sap does flow in the sapwood!
http://maple.dnr.cornell.edu/produc/sapflow.htmIt appears even the academics can't agree. Or maybe I'm scan reading and missing the detail.
I shall simply call it the inner bark in future.
Think I've had enough for now...
Del