## 3 Results and Discussion
### Mineral Analysis  
Tables 3 and 4 present the mineral concentration of _Acacia_ species leaves. The high mineral concentrations in the leaves of different species suggest their possible beneficial role as mineral supplements in ruminant diets. The results indicate that K, Ca, and Mg were the predominant minerals in the analyzed samples, while Cd was the least abundant. Maintaining low Cd concentrations in animal feed and soil ensures regulatory compliance, food safety, and environmental protection. It helps prevent bioaccumulation, safeguards soil and ecosystem health, and avoids economic losses and potential human health issues [36]. Pb was not detected in any of the samples analyzed. The nitrogen total (NT), obtained using the Kjeldahl method, varied significantly among the species, with values ranging from 2.25% to 3.03% for AMy and AC, respectively. The NT in the leaves can be attributed to the ability of leguminous species to fix nitrogen [20]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Species** & **NDF** & **Hem** & **ADF** & **Cell** & **ADL** & **NFC** \\  & **(\% DM)** & **(\% DM)** & **(\% DM)** & **(\% DM)** & **(\% DM)** & **(\% DM)** \\ \hline AMy & 60.18 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\text{f}}\) & 13.63 \(\pm\) 0.22 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 46.55 \(\pm\) 0.28 \({}^{\text{f}}\) & 16.03 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\text{f}}\) & 30.52 \(\pm\) 0.41 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 18.42 \(\pm\) 1.47 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ AD & 41.32 \(\pm\) 0.27 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 18.68 \(\pm\) 0.45 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 22.64 \(\pm\) 0.18 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 7.65 \(\pm\) 0.37 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 14.99 \(\pm\) 0.19 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 29.95 \(\pm\) 0.49 \({}^{\text{d}}\) \\ AC & 43.24 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 21.90 \(\pm\) 0.48 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 21.34 \(\pm\) 0.42 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 12.03 \(\pm\) 0.26 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 9.31 \(\pm\) 0.16 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 27.05 \(\pm\) 0.14 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ AR & 38.81 \(\pm\) 0.79 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 13.05 \(\pm\) 1.00 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 25.76 \(\pm\) 0.21 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 10.68 \(\pm\) 0.10 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 15.08 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 33.89 \(\pm\) 0.88 \({}^{\text{e}}\) \\ AMs & 41.45 \(\pm\) 0.26 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 15.19 \(\pm\) 0.23 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 26.26 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 9.78 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 16.47 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 29.75 \(\pm\) 0.30 \({}^{\text{d}}\) \\ AP & 36.61 \(\pm\) 0.39 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 14.21 \(\pm\) 0.30 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 22.39 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 9.14 \(\pm\) 0.19 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 13.26 \(\pm\) 0.10 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 41.23 \(\pm\) 0.29 \({}^{\text{f}}\) \\ AL & 49.98 \(\pm\) 0.10 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 16.26 \(\pm\) 0.15 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 33.71 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 10.29 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\text{cd}}\) & 23.42 \(\pm\) 0.13 \({}^{\text{f}}\) & 24.17 \(\pm\) 0.14 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ AS & 41.97 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 13.91 \(\pm\) 0.26 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 28.07 \(\pm\) 0.31 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 10.74 \(\pm\) 0.23 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 17.32 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 29.07 \(\pm\) 0.29 \({}^{\text{cd}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Nutritional value of acacia leaf species on a dry matter basis (% in DM) (mean \(\pm\) standard deviation). P concentration varied greatly, ranging from 310 mg/kg in AP to 1290 mg/kg in AMy. This last result suggests that the leaves with a higher phosphorus content than 1000 mg/kg (AMy, AC, AR, and AS) ([PERSON] et al., 2017) are adequate for specialized fodder meeting the requirements of sheep ([PERSON] et al., 2017). AP, AL, and AD had lower P content than other fodder species ([PERSON] et al., 2017). Higher values were recorded by [PERSON] et al. (2017) for the species _A. reticul_ (156,000 mg/kg) and _A. senegal_ (238,000 mg/kg). The phosphorus concentrations in acacia leaves found in this study were higher than those observed for rods for the same species ([PERSON] et al., 2017).