There's a big difference between what we can eat and what is nutritious food. I used to work for the USDA and every nutrition label, including animal foods, is baed on the raw, unprocessed food. Now, to be fair, some foods have nutrients that increase when cooked - such as greens, like kale. The calcium and vitamin C actually increases when cooked for some time. So it's not that I'm a huge raw foodie or something. But what I am saying is that labels do not reflect what we're buying and that's just a fact. Because nutrient loads change when cooked or processed and we, as laypeople, don't know if those changes are an increase or a decrease, I can't depend on the labels of those manufactured diets. But knowing that healthy free-range chickens, if dissected, have about 50% invertebrate matter and the rest is fruit, seeds, and greens, then I'm more likely to aim for that, plus add eggshell or oyster shell and of course, an accommodating diet in winter when they may not be able to have all that naturally than I am a manufactured diet. In fact, the very words make me skeptical that that is the very best I can do for a living thing. Just my feeling, but, hey, my friend swears by 1/2 layer pellet and 1/2 chicken scratch and it's been working for her for years. And then there are those who don't buy any grain feed or pellets and swear by the compost and forage method. In the end, they are chickens. They will eat. And if they have enough nutrients, that's what matters. I just don't really see processed food as nutrient rich as it has not actually been analyzed and labeled once it was processed and shelved.