Mr. Cool,
Let's simply use logic and science to analyze the fermented feed situation as proposed by you. First know that I have spent my life as a chicken hobbyist as well as having served as a practicing curator of birds at the National Zoological Park, Smithsonian and as a general curator (all species) at an additional zoological park. Then there are my years as a classroom instructor. So I think I have earned my place to make qualified scientific statements regarding avian dietary requirements. Keep in mind that we know more about the nutritive requirements of the chicken than we do of our own species. And no, not everybody has an opinion regarding fermented feed. That is a ridiculously specious position to take since in fact, most folks have no need to have an intimate knowledge of the dietary requirements of any species much less those of the chicken. And I have personally done an array of research investigations with respect to several animal species. As for your disdain for, as you so rustically put it, "book literature" as if there were any other kind, I fail to grasp just what you might mean. And that it is a tenet among many of those unfamiliar with facts and systems that one has to try out a hypothesis in order to ascertain its validity is simply another poorly thought out fallacy. One does not swallow arsenic to determine its toxicity, i.e., its ability to do great harm and to possibly even kill the questioner. Major purposes of archived knowledge include preventing others from making unnecessary errors or repeating work already accomplished. I gave you and any who care to think about the lack of utility for using foodstuffs spent by fermentation, a rational and scientific reason based in fundamental organic chemistry to demonstrate my informed and tested position.
Neal, the Zooman