Why? Because "Even the smallest starter for liquid yeast will give you definitive information as to it's health and with enough lead time to actually do something about it if the news is not so good."
Yes, I just quoted myself because you seemed to have missed it the first time. Naturally, this is my opinion. YMMV.
The following is not intended to be directed to Brewskii, but I'm just offering a different opinion for others who are new to brewing:
I'm not saying starters are bad, I'm just saying, it's not always the best advice to ALWAYS reccomend a starter. There is no way to guage yeast health unless one actually has the capability to count cells or count cell growth - even with a starter. What many people think is yeast at the bottom, is actually break material. For me at least, yeast usually doesnt even settle out in a starter until is chilled.
Even the smallest starter can introduce containination. Unless you allow for a full week or have a stir plate- a starter is basically useless. There is little cell growth and limited activity in 24 hours and there is no way to guarantee the yeast is active in that little time unless you get a krausen, which is unusual in a starter - and even then you dont have time to allow the yeast to settle out. Unless you can allow a full week, I'd reccomend not making a starter and to instead pitch multiple vials.
If you're doing a small beer, and your sanatation isn't not impeicable (which most home brewers are not, despite what they think), you're better off without a starter. Sometimes pitching multiple vials can also be a better option than a starter, especially if you dont have stir plate or a full week to grow yeast.
Starters are great if you want to save a few bucks and are brewing a high OG beer, but it's not necessarily going to brew better beer than pitching multiple vials.
