Steamed: use and misuse of the word

[Fat Guy]

Needless to say, to steam is to cook with . . . steam. Most often this is accomplished by putting a small amount of water in the bottom of a cooking vessel, then using a steamer basket to elevate the food to be steamed over the water. When the water boils the vapor rises up, circulates around and cooks the food.

In the past few weeks, however, I've been reminded several times that often when people say food is "steamed" they actually mean it's boiled, as in cooked by being immersed in boiling water. I've heard boiled rice referred to as steamed rice (and a rice cooker referred to as a rice steamer), boiled asparagus referred to as steamed asparagus and boiled dumplings referred to as steamed dumplings. Boiled rice, boiled asparagus and boiled dumplings can be delicious in their own right, but they're not steamed.

What am I missing? Are there languages and cultures where they don't really distinguish between steaming and boiling? What's going on?

[Chris Amirault]

Huh? This seems utterly wrong-headed. Do you have some attributions, dude?

[dockhl]

My husband has a vegetable steamer that does, really, steam vegetables. However, you can also cook rice in it. You put rice in the little container wit the appropriate amount of water, and the put it in the steamer......with more water in the bottom to produce steam The heat simmers the rice..........

I get steamed just THINKING about it!

LOL~

Kathy

[hzrt8w]

When it comes to making white rice, Chinese style, sometimes the rice are boiled and sometimes are steamed - depending on the kitchen. I have seen rice immerced in water in a flat container and steamed in a large steaming vessel in commercial kitchens. This is in contrast to using the rice cooker to "boil" the rice. I think the "steaming" method is more modular and it's easier to change out the flat container for the steamed rice (think of "dim sum") than to change out rice cookers.

So for steamed rice, it is not necessarily a misnomer.

[srhcb]

Well, the International Journal of Food Science & Technology has this to say on the subject:

"The different results for boiling and steaming imply that different mechanisms control the influx of water in each case, and provide important data for modelling these processes."

SB (don't ask me! I just Googled it. )

[Adam Balic]

In some cases word use remains the same although the technology changes.

"roasting" is another one I guess. Before enclosed domestic heat sources and ovens, "roast" meat was done via a direct heat source (on a spit for example). Meat cooked in an oven was "baked" meat. Now we call meat cooked in the oven roast meat, with only the distinction for "baked ham" remaining.

My old asparagus cooker is a small basket which fits into a tall pot. The bottom inch or so of the asparagus sits in the water, the rest out. So this would be "mostly steamed, but partly boiled" asparagus to be correct. Ditto the absorbtion method I use for cooking rice. Innitial the rice frys, then boils and then steams. I think that if anybody asked I would call it "steamed rice" to keep it simple ("boiled" sounds too much like the old Anglo- method and fried means something else).

[Fat Guy]

Adam, can you clarify a couple of your comments?

First, while I understand what you're saying about roasting, I don't get how it applies to steaming. Is there an old use of the term that differs from modern usage?

Second, I guess I don't understand your method for cooking rice. What are the steps and at what point do you consider it to be steaming?

[Fat Guy]

Huh? This seems utterly wrong-headed. Do you have some attributions, dude?

←

Here's an example of a website that calls standard rice cookers (which, as far as I can tell, cook by boiling -- unless the point is that when you boil with the lid on you're steaming) "rice steamers."

The easiest way to cook rice is in a rice steamer. Top-end rice steamers, as sold in Japan and other places where people take their rice seriously, have several settings for different kinds of rice and can be set on timers, so that both your coffee and your rice are piping hot for you in the morning. Low-end rice steamers, as sold in Wal-Mart and other places where people take their screaming children, have a "cook" button.

http://www.issendai.com/lifeskills/Miso%20...nese-rice.shtml

[annecros]

I've noticed that seafood seems to follow the same sort of fuzzy line between "boiling" and "steaming" sometimes. Sometimes, the seafood is actually steamed, but the event is called a boil. Then there is an Oyster Roast, where the oysters are put over hot coals, but then are in fact covered with wet burlap and effectively steamed. What I think of as a traditional Maryland Crab Boil is actually steaming. Clam "Bakes" also involve steaming sometimes.

[phaelon56]

I've noticed that seafood seems to follow the same sort of fuzzy line between "boiling" and "steaming" sometimes. Sometimes, the seafood is actually steamed, but the event is called a boil. Then there is an Oyster Roast, where the oysters are put over hot coals, but then are in fact covered with wet burlap and effectively steamed. What I think of as a traditional Maryland Crab Boil is actually steaming. Clam "Bakes" also involve steaming sometimes.

←

In my neck of the woods the term "bake" is used very loosely. "Clambake" involves steamed clams, boiled corn on the cob and boiled salt potatoes as the primary foods although other items are served as well.

"Lobsterbake" (less common here than in New England as lobsters are pricey in this area) is identical to a clambake but with the addition of boiled lobsters.

Lastly - far less common than the preceding two but still offered on occasion as summer fundraisers by local rural volunteer fire departments - is the "steakbake". It's nearly identical to the clambake but offers a more limited amount of clams and instead focuses on unlimited Delmonico (small boneless ribeye) steaks. They are typically sauteed in clarified butter and then finished on a grill.

[srhcb]

Now, does a pressure cooker boil or steam food?

SB

[annecros]

Now, does a pressure cooker boil or steam food?

SB

←

Neither.

It "processes" food.

But you can slap a regular lid on after processing and "simmer" for a while.

[JasonTrue]

Actually rice cookers, and even pots with lids, both steam and boil the rice. In Japan, all sorts of culinary folklore about keeping the lid on the rice throughout the cooking process abounds. If you let the steam out, you're only boiling, and that produces very sad rice indeed. In fact, most of the time the water is only boiling for about 10-15 minutes of the 40-60 minute process of cooking rice... the rest of the time, the temperature is being held to allow the steam to do the rest of the work.

Here's an example of a website that calls standard rice cookers (which, as far as I can tell, cook by boiling -- unless the point is that when you boil with the lid on you're steaming) "rice steamers."

The easiest way to cook rice is in a rice steamer. Top-end rice steamers, as sold in Japan and other places where people take their rice seriously, have several settings for different kinds of rice and can be set on timers, so that both your coffee and your rice are piping hot for you in the morning. Low-end rice steamers, as sold in Wal-Mart and other places where people take their screaming children, have a "cook" button.

http://www.issendai.com/lifeskills/Miso%20...nese-rice.shtml

←

[SuzySushi]

I agree about the distinction between boiled and steamed rice. Boiled rice -- mostly Western style, but also used for par-cooking basmati rice -- is rice boiled in a copious amount of boiling water (enough water so the rice circulates), then drained.

For steamed rice (Asian style), the rice is washed, then placed in a pot or rice cooker with water to cover by about 3/4" above the level of the rice. It is brought to a boil (covered) and then the heat is turned very low. Within about 3 minutes, the excess liquid is absorbed; the rice then cooks by steaming in the residual hot moisture.

Certain types of rice, such as glutinous rice, are typically cooked by steaming in a bamboo or metal steamer over a pan of boiling water.

Edited March 26, 2007 by SuzySushi (log)

[Fat Guy]

So there really is no good term to describe what a rice cooker does, or what happens when you cook rice in a pot with 2:1 (or whatever) water:rice and a lid on. It's not just boiling. It's not just steaming. And "absorption" would seem only to describe the early part of cooking. Interesting.

[srhcb]

So there really is no good term to describe what a rice cooker does .... It's not just boiling. It's not just steaming.

←

Stea-ling?

Boi-ming?

SB (how about "cooking"?)

Edited March 26, 2007 by srhcb (log)

[alanamoana]

at my house we just say "i'm making rice"...that nicely sidesteps the question as to whether it is boiled or steamed.

if i'm making sticky rice, i'm steaming it.

i think in chinese cooking, the terms are clearer. it is usually very clear by a dish's name as to the cooking method. where in the united states, a dish might be labeled "crispy fish" in chinese it is often clearer as to whether that fish has been deep fried, pan fried or whatever.

is that still on topic?

[Adam Balic]

Adam, can you clarify a couple of your comments?

First, while I understand what you're saying about roasting, I don't get how it applies to steaming. Is there an old use of the term that differs from modern usage?

Not that I am aware of. The point I was trying to make was that if people are use to a term connected to a specific food item then they tend to stick to it even if the term is technically incorrect. I can't remember if we have ever boiled asparagus in our home, but if we did I would proberly say 'steaming' out of habit.

People will also use terms that sound more attractive as well (like "saute" for "fry"), and in part I think that this is what is going on with boil=steam

Second, I guess I don't understand your method for cooking rice. What are the steps and at what point do you consider it to be steaming?

←

For plain rice, one cup of rice is fried with one tablespoon of oil until 'done', then 1.5 cups of hot water are added. The lid is placed on the pan and the heat turned to the lowest setting and it is left for 15 minutes. After this the heat is turned off, the lid taken off to release the steam and get rid of the water on the lid, replaced and the rice left for another 5 minutes or so.

I know that this isn't steaming over a body of water, but the rice actually absorbs the water in the first 7-8 minutes, after this the only water in the pot has been absorbed by the rice or is in the form of steam. When cooking for a party etc, the technique is even more exaggerated, rice is boiled for 7 mintutes, drained (this could be for a few hours or more) then put into a pot with the lid on and placed on the lowest setting, for at least 15 minutes, even up to an hour depending on the nature of the rice.

It may not be classical "steaming", but there is enough water vapour in the system to qualify as steaming I should think. I don't think that there is a precise culinary term for the process as Europeans have been boiling the crap out of rice for the most part.

[astartenyny]

i have the same question about steamed puddings. the recipe i'm planning on trying this week is called Apple Steamed Pudding with Toffee Sauce.

the method is similar to making a cake though you put the mix into a 1.2 ltr pudding basin and cover it with a pleated top of baking paper tied with string. the recipe says to 'put the bowl in a pan and fill the pan with enough boiling water to come halfway up the side of the bowl. steam the pudding for 1-1/2 hours, replenishing the water halfway into cooking.'

i'll give it a go and let you know results. but until i read thru the whole recipe i was planning on setting the bowl on some kind of trivet that would let it sit above the water not in it. now i'll just follow the recipe and let it sit in the water.

[Adam Balic]

The instructions are correct (although they can be steamed if you like). Originally, these puddings were boiled in a cloth, so there was never any question of steaming. Later with the development of baking powder, steaming became possible (and practical).

This is from a cookbook circ. 1930's:

Marmalade Pudding

1/4 lb flour, 1/4 lb breadcrumbs, 1/4 lb suet (chopped), 1/4 lb sugar, 1/4 lb marmalade, one egg. Mix well together, put into a buttered basin and boil for two hours.

Steamed Pudding

2 oz butter or beef drippping, 1/2 cup sugar, 1/2 cup jam, 1 cup jam, 1 cup flour, 1 level teaspoon soda mixed in half a cup of milk. Beat butter, jam and sugar to a cream; add flour then soda and milk. Steam for three hours.

Originally these steamed puddings where made in special vessels with tight fitting lids, but you can make them in a basin also. Even when in made in the special vessels they were still partially immersed in boiling water. I think that "steaming" simply refered to partial immersion.

As the former type of pudding could have been made in a cloth and boiled totally immersed in water, but these have largely fell out of favour. So I think that the term "steaming" was remained attached to the way that puddings are made, even if not entirely correct.

[MarketStEl]

As far as I understood, the ideal method of cooking asparagus is indeed part-boiling, part-steaming.

Because the base of an asparagus stalk is denser and more woody than the upper part, it should sit in boiling water to become tender.

The tips, on the other hand, should be steamed lest they go limp.

The compromise method I often use is to cook the asparagus with the bottom parts cut off in a cast-iron skillet with about a quarter inch of water. Bring the water to the boil, then add the asparagus; cover and cook for about 2-3 minutes.

Again, neither "boiling" nor "steaming" quite describes this method, though it's closer to boiling, except the asparagus isn't completely immersed here either.

[Fat Guy]

I learn something new every day. A couple of questions, though:

1- I think the answer is yes, but does boiling definitely cook more thoroughly than steaming?

2- Even with just steam, wouldn't the vertical orientation mean the bottoms get cooked more quickly than the tops?

[Adam Balic]

I learn something new every day. A couple of questions, though:

1- I think the answer is yes, but does boiling definitely cook more thoroughly than steaming?

2- Even with just steam, wouldn't the vertical orientation mean the bottoms get cooked more quickly than the tops?

←

Steam temperature sea level (14.696 PSI) is about 100.C, the same as temperature of boiling water. Steam in a pan like this will not be 'dry steam' (all

water molecules all in a gas state), so I guess the difference in cooking will be due to the conduction of heat in liquid v gas state, with the complication that most of the steam is actually droplets of liquid water.

In my experience, unless you are super skilled at trimming the bases, the tops will be over-done before the bottoms are tender. For this reason I normally trim the base.

[Kouign Aman]

"more thoroughly" ? Are you asking if something immersed in boiling water becomes more cooked than something blanketed in steam?

Not in my experience, tho it may reach a certain point of done-ness sooner.

[slkinsey]

1- I think the answer is yes, but does boiling definitely cook more thoroughly than steaming?

That's not quite the right question. The right question is: Does water conduct thermal energy into food more efficiently than steam? The answer is: yes, it does. Something that is placed in 100C water will come up to 100C more rapidly than something that is placed in 101C steam. This is because the item that is in water is being contacted by many more molecules than the item that is in steam, because liquid H2O is much more dense than H2O gas dispersed in air. Thermal energy is only conducted when there is contact.

So, it's not the case that boiling cooks more thoroughly than steaming in an absolute sense. If you steam something for one hour, it will be more "thoroughly cooked" than it would be if you boiled it for one minute. Given a reasonably short, equal period of time, however, boiling will cook more thoroughly than steaming because it is so much more efficient at conducting thermal energy.

2- Even with just steam, wouldn't the vertical orientation mean the bottoms get cooked more quickly than the tops [when asparagus is cooked in a tall, narrow pot such that the water only comes part of the way up the length of the asparagus]?

Yes. That's the theory behind this cooking method. The tougher, bottom parts of the asparagus need to be softened by being cooked more thoroughly. This is achieved by having the bottom parts of the asparagus in 100C water, where maximum thermal energy can be conducted in and the vegetable comes up to 100C rapidly and remains there for the longest period of time. The tips of the asparagus are already tender and only need to come up to 100C or perhaps even less. Since these parts of the asparagus are only heated by steam, which is significantly less efficient at conducting thermal enegry, it takes them a lot longer to come up to temperature. In this way, the whole stalk of asparagus is cooked at the same time, but the bottom part is cooked more than the top part.

This is, I think, largely an abandoned theory on how to cook asparagus. In practice it doesn't really work all that well, and one either ends up with mushy overcooked asparagus or the bottom part never does become tender -- and most often, both. It's much better to simply snap off the woody bottoms of the asparagus stalks, peel away the tough parts of the skin from the bottom half of the stalks, and throw the whole stalk into boiling salted water until barely tender (the whole stalk will become tender at the same time when treated this way).

People will also use terms that sound more attractive as well  (like "saute" for "fry"), and in part I think that this is what is going on with boil=steam

Yes, I think that's a big part of it. For some reason "boiled something-or-other" doesn't have the same appeal to most people as "steamed something-or-other." This may be due to negative connotations accrued to "boiled" by overcooked meats and vegetables cooked by boiling. I agree that there is a similar phenomenon at work with respect to "sauteed" and "fried" (if it's sitting still in the pan, it's frying; if it's moving around in the pan, it's sauteing) because "fried" evokes greasy fattening foods whereas "sauteed" somehow evokes lighter more sophisticated food. This likely has to do with the mis-use of the word "fry" to describe cooking techniques that might better be described as "boiling in oil" (e.g., "shallow frying " and "deep frying"). There, again, we come up against a reluctance to use the word "boil."

Edited March 28, 2007 by slkinsey (log)