My usual process for mixing wheat doughs is to mix briefly just to wet
all the flour, then let it sit 30 minutes to hydrate ("autolyse"),
then knead about 5-10 minutes (in a KA mixer) until it's smooth and
elastic. (This replaced my old method of mixing for 15 minutes
straight with no autolyse; I find that the autolyse method gives the
same gluten development with much less mixing.)

My last attempt at a dough with any substantial portion of rye flour
resulted in a grainy, sticky, gummy mess. This was before I started
including the autolyse phase. I've just been reading through the rye
sections of various books and I've seen some conflicting advice,
though the unanimous opinion is that rye can't handle much mixing.

One questionable thing I read is that the pentosan gums in rye will
tend to "gobble up" the water before the gluten has a chance to
hydrate, resulting in poor gluten quality. That author recommended
initial mixing with only 2/3 of the water to make a stiff dough, then
an autolyse, then mixing to a smooth ball. Then the remaining water
is added a little bit at a time, kneading after each addition until
the dough is smooth. I'm afraid I don't see the logic in this method;
why not add all the water at once? How does this help the gluten get
more of the water than the gums? Any thoughts?

I'd be interested in hearing other advice on handling mixed
whole-grain wheat/rye doughs, with anywhere from 10%-50% rye. Also,
opinions on the right hydration would be appreciated; my standard for
100% whole wheat is 67-70%. Rye ought to be able to absorb more, in
theory, but then my (limited) experience says that it will be very
sticky, so I would tend to want to make it drier.

One more question -- I understand that acidity is key to rye doughs.
Is it critical that this acidity be present at mixing time (i.e., from
the pre-ferment), or can I use a small amount of not-too-sour
pre-ferment and rely on acid production during bulk fermentation?

--
Randall

"Randall Nortman" > wrote in message =
k.net...

> I'd be interested in hearing other advice on handling mixed
> whole-grain wheat/rye doughs ...

My advice:

Forget rye.

Life is too short.

--
Dicky

Randall Nortman wrote:
> My usual process for mixing wheat doughs is to mix briefly just to wet
> all the flour, then let it sit 30 minutes to hydrate ("autolyse"),
> then knead about 5-10 minutes (in a KA mixer) until it's smooth and
> elastic. (This replaced my old method of mixing for 15 minutes
> straight with no autolyse; I find that the autolyse method gives the
> same gluten development with much less mixing.)
>
> My last attempt at a dough with any substantial portion of rye flour
> resulted in a grainy, sticky, gummy mess. This was before I started
> including the autolyse phase. I've just been reading through the rye
> sections of various books and I've seen some conflicting advice,
> though the unanimous opinion is that rye can't handle much mixing.

It's probably also that much kneading is not necessary with rye, it has
no beneficial effect.

> One questionable thing I read is that the pentosan gums in rye will
> tend to "gobble up" the water before the gluten has a chance to
> hydrate, resulting in poor gluten quality. That author recommended
> initial mixing with only 2/3 of the water to make a stiff dough, then
> an autolyse, then mixing to a smooth ball. Then the remaining water
> is added a little bit at a time, kneading after each addition until
> the dough is smooth. I'm afraid I don't see the logic in this method;
> why not add all the water at once? How does this help the gluten get
> more of the water than the gums? Any thoughts?

Where was that? Could you quote the reference please. If it was Laurel's
Kitchen Bread Book, it would be a good opportunity to start a discussion
about the usefulness of information in this book under the aspect of
sourdough. As far as I remember, they did not give any sources either.

> I'd be interested in hearing other advice on handling mixed
> whole-grain wheat/rye doughs, with anywhere from 10%-50% rye.

Use water - dip your hands in (I think cold works better) water before
approaching the rye dough/loafs.

At one point, a fellow posted his rye procedure, he was using rubber
gloves. I don't find this to be necessary.

> Also,
> opinions on the right hydration would be appreciated; my standard for
> 100% whole wheat is 67-70%. Rye ought to be able to absorb more, in
> theory, but then my (limited) experience says that it will be very
> sticky, so I would tend to want to make it drier.

Rye is sticky, there is no way around and hydration is higher with rye.

> One more question -- I understand that acidity is key to rye doughs.
> Is it critical that this acidity be present at mixing time (i.e., from
> the pre-ferment), or can I use a small amount of not-too-sour
> pre-ferment and rely on acid production during bulk fermentation?

I found a difference when thoroughly mixing (almost foamy) rye and water
at the very beginning and not doing it. The latter, identically made
bread (60/40 wheat rye mix) showed a better structure which means to me
that amylase activity is happening right away and has affect. If you are
doing 30 minutes of autolyzing without starter, you may contribute to
deterioration.

I don't think that acid production during bulk fermentation is the way
to go and if I remember right, literature gives the amount of acidity
required to be able to make rye breads with various amounts of rye
content. That acidity is contained in the initial starter amount before
mixing.

please see the table at the bottom of:

http://samartha.net/SD/SourdoughDefinition.html#SEC11

And, Dick Adams wrote:

> My advice:
>
> Forget rye.
>
> Life is too short.

Even if you think life is too short, is it worth living a compromise?

A true sourhead hits the rye head on.

Rye is _the_ sourdough grain because one can't make rye breads without
souring and rye does souring naturally, all by itself.


Samartha

"Dick Adams" > wrote in message
...

"Randall Nortman" > wrote in message
k.net...

> I'd be interested in hearing other advice on handling mixed
> whole-grain wheat/rye doughs ...

My advice:

Forget rye.

Life is too short.

Oh no! I love rye, I'd hate to think I wouldn't live long enough to have it
again :-)

Mary

--
Dicky

On 2005-08-24, Samartha Deva > wrote:
> Randall Nortman wrote:
[...]
>> One questionable thing I read is that the pentosan gums in rye will
>> tend to "gobble up" the water before the gluten has a chance to
>> hydrate, resulting in poor gluten quality. That author recommended
>> initial mixing with only 2/3 of the water to make a stiff dough, then
>> an autolyse, then mixing to a smooth ball. Then the remaining water
>> is added a little bit at a time, kneading after each addition until
>> the dough is smooth. I'm afraid I don't see the logic in this method;
>> why not add all the water at once? How does this help the gluten get
>> more of the water than the gums? Any thoughts?
>
> Where was that? Could you quote the reference please. If it was Laurel's
> Kitchen Bread Book, it would be a good opportunity to start a discussion
> about the usefulness of information in this book under the aspect of
> sourdough. As far as I remember, they did not give any sources either.
[...]

Good guess, that's exactly where I read it. I've found that it's a
very good book otherwise (though I don't turn to it much for sourdough
advice). It's the only book I've found with a lot of information on
whole-grain breads, and as an added bonus it gives recipes in both
volume and weight measures.

>> Also,
>> opinions on the right hydration would be appreciated; my standard for
>> 100% whole wheat is 67-70%. Rye ought to be able to absorb more, in
>> theory, but then my (limited) experience says that it will be very
>> sticky, so I would tend to want to make it drier.
>
> Rye is sticky, there is no way around and hydration is higher with rye.

So when I'm replacing some whole-grain wheat flour in a recipe with an
equal amount of whole-grain rye, I should increase the hydration? I
can deal with the stickiness; my primary concern is in getting the
dough stiffness correct, so that the loaves can hold their shape when
not baked in a loaf pan.


>> One more question -- I understand that acidity is key to rye doughs.
>> Is it critical that this acidity be present at mixing time (i.e., from
>> the pre-ferment), or can I use a small amount of not-too-sour
>> pre-ferment and rely on acid production during bulk fermentation?
>
> I found a difference when thoroughly mixing (almost foamy) rye and water
> at the very beginning and not doing it. The latter, identically made
> bread (60/40 wheat rye mix) showed a better structure which means to me
> that amylase activity is happening right away and has affect. If you are
> doing 30 minutes of autolyzing without starter, you may contribute to
> deterioration.

No, the starter is mixed into the dough right from the start, before
the autolyse step. In fact, I go ahead and put the salt in as well,
even though it is generally recommended to do that after autolyse.
It's probably better to wait, but I like to shoot for a balance
between laziness and perfection.


> I don't think that acid production during bulk fermentation is the way
> to go and if I remember right, literature gives the amount of acidity
> required to be able to make rye breads with various amounts of rye
> content. That acidity is contained in the initial starter amount before
> mixing.
>
> please see the table at the bottom of:
>
> http://samartha.net/SD/SourdoughDefinition.html#SEC11

I'm afraid I don't have the tools necessary to measure pH, nor am I
certain how that table should be interpreted anyway -- is the "acid
contents of starter" supposed to be the TTA? Would I then use this
table by looking up the pH and TTA that correspond to my chosen
percent rye flour, and wait until the starter hits these targets
before mixing the dough? Or is the "suggested rye flour contents in
percent" supposed to be interpreted as the percentage of dough that
comes from the starter?

That's just academic curiosity for me anyway, as I don't intend to
measure the pH of my starter (see laziness vs. perfection above).
Anyway, the point is that I should let my pre-ferment get nice and
sour before mixing the dough. I don't normally do that, but I can
adapt.

Incidentally, I intended to try your pumpernickel recipe once the
weather gets a bit cooler, so that I don't mind having the oven on for
24 hours straight. Until then, I'll stick with more typical wheat/rye
mix breads.

--
Randall

Randall Nortman wrote:
[..]
>>Where was that? Could you quote the reference please. If it was Laurel's
>>Kitchen Bread Book, it would be a good opportunity to start a discussion
>> about the usefulness of information in this book under the aspect of
>>sourdough. As far as I remember, they did not give any sources either.
>
> [...]
>
> Good guess, that's exactly where I read it. I've found that it's a
> very good book otherwise (though I don't turn to it much for sourdough
> advice). It's the only book I've found with a lot of information on
> whole-grain breads, and as an added bonus it gives recipes in both
> volume and weight measures.

IMO, they are a bit weak on the SD side and I got caught up/led astray
on the same phrase - water absorbing capacity/speed difference between
rye and wheat. Could not do diddely squat with that info given there and
still don't know what's up with that, if anything.

>>>Also,
>>>opinions on the right hydration would be appreciated; my standard for
>>>100% whole wheat is 67-70%. Rye ought to be able to absorb more, in
>>>theory, but then my (limited) experience says that it will be very
>>>sticky, so I would tend to want to make it drier.
>>
>>Rye is sticky, there is no way around and hydration is higher with rye.
>
>
> So when I'm replacing some whole-grain wheat flour in a recipe with an
> equal amount of whole-grain rye, I should increase the hydration?

Exactly - the more rye, the more water. The problem is that it depends
on a couple of factors. I found that 1 % too much water can screw things
up (dough too wet, not holding shape) and if I say that my bread comes
out fine with 78 % hydration and 100 % rye, too wet with 72 % hydration
and 20 % rye, fine with 70.5 % hydration and 40 % rye, it does not mean
much because my flour hydration may differ from whosoever uses those
numbers.

> I
> can deal with the stickiness; my primary concern is in getting the
> dough stiffness correct, so that the loaves can hold their shape when
> not baked in a loaf pan.

You'll probably have to experiment to find out for your situation.

> No, the starter is mixed into the dough right from the start, before
> the autolyse step. In fact, I go ahead and put the salt in as well,
> even though it is generally recommended to do that after autolyse.
> It's probably better to wait, but I like to shoot for a balance
> between laziness and perfection.

Starter before autolyzing also increases deterioration doing it also
goes towards laziness.

>>I don't think that acid production during bulk fermentation is the way
>>to go and if I remember right, literature gives the amount of acidity
>>required to be able to make rye breads with various amounts of rye
>>content. That acidity is contained in the initial starter amount before
>>mixing.
>>
>>please see the table at the bottom of:
>>
>>http://samartha.net/SD/SourdoughDefinition.html#SEC11
>
>
> I'm afraid I don't have the tools necessary to measure pH, nor am I
> certain how that table should be interpreted anyway -- is the "acid
> contents of starter" supposed to be the TTA? Would I then use this
> table by looking up the pH and TTA that correspond to my chosen
> percent rye flour, and wait until the starter hits these targets
> before mixing the dough?

Just take this as "additional information" that this is happening and
needs to be taken care of in some way or another. TTA is total titrable
acidity - the actual acid content which determines the sourness, i. e.
the sourness "uumpf". Full grain starters have more sourness with equal
pH than white flours.

If you use the starter amounts in my DM3 calculator for the different
rye %, you should be ok.

> Or is the "suggested rye flour contents in
> percent" supposed to be interpreted as the percentage of dough that
> comes from the starter?

exactly

> That's just academic curiosity for me anyway, as I don't intend to
> measure the pH of my starter (see laziness vs. perfection above).
> Anyway, the point is that I should let my pre-ferment get nice and
> sour before mixing the dough. I don't normally do that, but I can
> adapt.

If you use full grain rye for your starter and ferment it until it peaks
and activity declines, you are ok. You don't need a pH meter for that.

> Incidentally, I intended to try your pumpernickel recipe once the
> weather gets a bit cooler, so that I don't mind having the oven on for
> 24 hours straight. Until then, I'll stick with more typical wheat/rye
> mix breads.

When you do the pumpernickel, don't use aluminum foil, that gets
corroded by the acid.

Enjoy your rye adventures :-)

Samartha

Randall Nortman wrote:

>On 2005-08-24, Samartha Deva > wrote:
>
>
>
>>I found a difference when thoroughly mixing (almost foamy) rye and water
>>at the very beginning and not doing it. The latter, identically made
>>bread (60/40 wheat rye mix) showed a better structure which means to me
>>that amylase activity is happening right away and has affect. If you are
>>doing 30 minutes of autolyzing without starter, you may contribute to
>>deterioration.
>>
>>
>
>No, the starter is mixed into the dough right from the start, before
>the autolyse step. In fact, I go ahead and put the salt in as well,
>even though it is generally recommended to do that after autolyse.
>It's probably better to wait, but I like to shoot for a balance
>between laziness and perfection.
>
>
By definition, an autolyse has no riser in it. It's just flour and
water, and the action is self starting (the "auto" part) based on
enzymes in the flour.

If you put starter or yeast or poolish or biga or whatever sort of thing
that has a biological riser, its no longer an autolyse.

I'm not suggesting that what you are doing is "wrong", just that its
mislabled.

As to salt, that's a topic for several long threads. Jeff Hamelman
suggests putting salt into some autolyses to keep the enzymatic action
under control. Some people suggest putting the salt in the dough at the
end of the kneading. Others comment that salt acts as an anti-oxidant,
so it should be put into the dough early.

I put the salt into my doughs early.

Mike


--
....The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvaldis claims to be trying to take over the world...

Mike Avery mavery at mail dot otherwhen dot com
home baker ICQ 16241692
networking guru AIM mavery81230
wordsmith Yahoo mavery81230

On 2005-08-25, Mike Avery > wrote:
> Randall Nortman wrote:
[...]
>>No, the starter is mixed into the dough right from the start, before
>>the autolyse step. In fact, I go ahead and put the salt in as well,
>>even though it is generally recommended to do that after autolyse.
>>It's probably better to wait, but I like to shoot for a balance
>>between laziness and perfection.
>>
> By definition, an autolyse has no riser in it. It's just flour and
> water, and the action is self starting (the "auto" part) based on
> enzymes in the flour.
[...]

Ah! *Now* it makes sense! The origin of the term was always
mysterious to me. I was first introduced to it by Nancy Silverton in
"Breads from the La Brea Bakery", which was, quite regrettably, my
primary source of information when I first started experimenting with
sourdough. I say this is regrettable because the book is full of
misinformation, and what little good information is in it is not
presented in a particularly clear or illuminating manner. Her version
of "autolyse" is that all ingredients other than salt (including the
starter) are mixed together and briefly kneaded, then the dough rests,
and then salt is added and kneading is completed. Going back and
reading that section again, I see that she includes this parenthetical
remark: "(Many bakers don't add their sourdough starter until after
the autolyse. I've found that it works pretty much the same either
way.)" Her explanation of the purpose and mechanisms of autolyse is
so worthless that I won't repeat any more of it, but suffice it to say
that I baked for several years after reading it before I even
considered actually trying anything like an autolyse.

This version of autolyse is repeated in another book I recently
acquired, Rose Levy Beranbaum's "The Bread Bible". This is a
significantly better book than Silverton's but it also has quite a few
shortcomings. She does mention that a traditional autolyse calls for
the leavening to be added after the autolyse (without explaining why),
but she "adapted" the process by mixing the leavening in before
autolyse to make it easier for home bakers to ensure even distribution
of the yeast.

Interestingly enough, once I began to understand the role of enzyme
activity in converting sugars to starches, it soon occured to me that
if you want to maximize this effect, you should hydrate the flour and
let it rest before adding any leavening. I dismissed this idea for
the same reason Beranbaum does: it seems like too much of an
inconvenience for a home baker. This is also why I include the salt
from the beginning.

Thanks for the clarification!

--
Randall

The term "autolyse" refers to the "self-disruption" of the initial
anisotropic formation of gluten strands by proteases present in the flour.
This is desirable to give the dough greater extensibility and to ensure the
creation of a more structured gluten framework. These proteases are
activated as soon as the flour and water are mixed. However, they are also
inhibited at reduced pH, hence the reason for omitting starter during the
autolyse step.

- Steve Brandt


"Randall Nortman" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Ah! *Now* it makes sense! The origin of the term was always
> mysterious to me...

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 00:33:10 GMT, Randall Nortman
> wrote:

>Ah! *Now* it makes sense! The origin of the term was always
>mysterious to me.

Hi Randall,

I will add my understanding that the term was "invented" by
Raymond Calvel.

An added hassle is that the Calvel term sounds like an
unrelated scientific term , "Autolysis", which occurs when
cells (in our case yeasts and LB) start to burst and die
off. If you sniff around you will see that the two terms
sometimes get confused.

All the best,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

"Kenneth" > wrote in message =
...

> An added hassle is that the Calvel term sounds like an
> unrelated scientific term , "Autolysis", which occurs when
> cells (in our case yeasts and LB) start to burst and die
> off. If you sniff around you will see that the two terms
> sometimes get confused.

It is no accident. These pseudoscientific book-writing baking
gurus attempt make themselves appear scientifically credible in=20
these sorts of fraudulent ways.

By the way, statistics prove that less than 1% of USA American
bread-baking amateurs who attempt rye ( > 50% rye) bread=20
succeed to the extent that it becomes fare in their homes. In this
respect, it should be mentioned that Samartha is an import. =20
Canadians may do slightly better.=20
=20
Probably the figure is closer to 0.01% if Samartha is excluded.

--
Dicky

"Dick Adams" > wrote in message
...
....
By the way, statistics prove that less than 1% of USA American
bread-baking amateurs who attempt rye ( > 50% rye) bread
[Wow! That few? That's a surprise.]

....
Probably the figure is closer to 0.01% if Samartha is excluded.
[Heh, heh, heh. Probably true. But, I too am an "import". Trust me, I
grew up on that stuff. And while I've not had any of Sam's bread to compare
with, I know that mine came out pretty good.

Despite that, I rarely make it. It probably won't make it as "fare" in this
house because we don't really like it...(:-o)! Or, perhaps expressed more
accurately, we like the various high-hydration, lightly soured, white flour
French and Italian style breads better...

Dusty]


--
Dicky

People always ask me for the recipe, but when I get into the details,
their eyes glaze over and that's the end of it.

Ron

Dick Adams wrote:

>"Kenneth" > wrote in message ...
>
>
>
>>An added hassle is that the Calvel term sounds like an
>>unrelated scientific term , "Autolysis", which occurs when
>>cells (in our case yeasts and LB) start to burst and die
>>off. If you sniff around you will see that the two terms
>>sometimes get confused.
>>
>>
>
>It is no accident. These pseudoscientific book-writing baking
>gurus attempt make themselves appear scientifically credible in
>these sorts of fraudulent ways.
>
>
I don't think Calvel can be said to fall into this group. He was a
baker for a long time, and he's had too much of an impact on baking on
three continents to be written off in so cavalier a fashion.

>By the way, statistics prove that less than 1% of USA American
>bread-baking amateurs who attempt rye ( > 50% rye) bread
>succeed to the extent that it becomes fare in their homes. In this
>respect, it should be mentioned that Samartha is an import.
>Canadians may do slightly better.
>
>Probably the figure is closer to 0.01% if Samartha is excluded.
>
>

I'd be interested in the source of the statistics. I suspect they were
derived by the time honored method of anal extraction. But they still
might be close to right.

Last year, I couldn't give rye breads away. This year, I am
consistently selling all I make. I guess it depends on the crowd. How
adventurous they are, what their ethnic background is, and so on.
Northern European and Jewish ancestry probably indicates more of a
preference for rye than Southern European roots.

Mike


--
....The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvaldis claims to be trying to take over the world...

Mike Avery mavery at mail dot otherwhen dot com
home baker ICQ 16241692
networking guru AIM mavery81230
wordsmith Yahoo mavery81230

"Mike Avery" > wrote in message =
news:mailman.12.1125014277.94321.rec.food.sourdoug ...=


> I'd be interested in the source of the statistics. I suspect they =
were=20
> derived by the time honored method of anal extraction.

Don't knock it. You can go to war that way. =20

> Last year, I couldn't give rye breads away. This year, I am=20
> consistently selling all I make. I guess it depends on the crowd. =
How=20
> adventurous they are, what their ethnic background is, and so on. =20
> Northern European and Jewish ancestry probably indicates more of a=20
> preference for rye than Southern European roots.

Selling, you loose your amateur credential. Not only that, your dough
passes the window-pane test. The conclusion I presented relates to=20
amateurs. =20

Anyway, you did not specifically mention the Poles. How many Poles
does it take to buy a rye loaf at the store? How many to bake one?

--
Dicky

This Polish language article (http://www.wprost.pl/ar/?O=48376&C=57)
describes how numerous Western personalities regard Polish bread as the
best in the world. Quoted are M. Jagger, M. Albright, Fish (whoever
that is), Japanese director M. Oshii, H. Kissinger, and many more. You
can read their names in the article even if your Polish is a bit rusty.

As an added bonus, here's a Polish language equivalent of this
newsgroup:

http://forum.gazeta.pl/forum/71,1.html?f=23433

Ron

>How many Poles does it take...?
>How many to bake one?

To further answer your question, you can see a nice selection of Polish
breads at:
http://images.google.com/images?q=ch...=Search+Images.

You can obtain this by searching for "chleb" at Google images.

Ron

"Ron" > wrote in message =
oups.com...

> >How many Poles does it take...?
> >How many to bake one?

> To further answer your question, you can see a nice selection of =
Polish
> breads at:
> =
http://images.google.com/images?q=3D...DSearch+Images.

Good answer. This following seems to be a picture of a bunch going to
the store, carrying a sign of some sort, to buy a loaf. Or maybe =
bakers=20
going to work to bake one?

http://old.nepomuk.cz/mikroreg/zprav...b-internet.gif

--
Dicky

You accidentally smuggled in a Czech reference. If you look at the
picture in more detail, you'll see that the e of chl=E9b ('bread') has
an acute accent over it, meaning that it is a long vowel. This
immediately disqualifies it as a Polish word, since the Polish word has
no diacritic mark on the e. Polish lost its distinction between long
and short e several centuries ago.

The problem is Google. I asked the Google Images program to show me
pictures of Polish "chleb" (with NO diacritic mark) and what did they
do? They mixed in references to both Polish chleb without the acute and
Czech chl=E9b with the mark! If one of my grad students did that in my
history of West Slavic class, they would flunk the question.

I should add that the sense of the Czech cartoon (as I understood it)
is that the workers are demanding "Bread and Internet," meaning that
the internet is a now a basic worker's demand, similar to bread and
decent working conditions. If there's a better interpretation, I'm
waiting for our Czech readers to correct me.

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Ron wrote:

> I should add that the sense of the Czech cartoon (as I understood it)
> is that the workers are demanding "Bread and Internet," meaning that
> the internet is a now a basic worker's demand, similar to bread and
> decent working conditions. If there's a better interpretation, I'm
> waiting for our Czech readers to correct me.

Or perhaps more like the Roman "Bread and Circus"!

Dave

Ron wrote:

> I should add that the sense of the Czech cartoon (as I understood it)
> is that the workers are demanding "Bread and Internet," meaning that
> the internet is a now a basic worker's demand, similar to bread and
> decent working conditions. If there's a better interpretation, I'm
> waiting for our Czech readers to correct me.

seems to refer to the roman "panem et circenses" , which means "bread and
games" and no, i'm not czech ... but it's sure time to make another rye
bread soon :-)

--
acd

Panem et circenses
"Bread and circus plays" - Juvenal, Satires 10, 81, describing all
that was needed for the emperors to placate the Roman mob, and today
used to describe any public entertainment used to distract public
attention from more important matters.

Thanks for the education.

Ron