## 3 Results and Discussion
### Texture  
Table 5 presents the texture profile analysis of sausages with added seaweed. KA, SP, and CL significantly affected the textural properties of the sausages, specifically in terms of hardness and chewiness (\(p<0.05\)). Hardness and chewiness increased with more addition of seaweed in the sausage formulation. Meanwhile, there were no significant difference \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Treatment**} & **Water Holding Capacity** & \multirow{2}{*}{**Cooking Loss (\%)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Colour**} \\ \cline{3-5}  & **Capacity** & & \multirow{2}{*}{**Loshness (L*)**} & **Redness (a*)** & **Yellowness (b*)** \\ \hline Control & 8.86 \(\pm\) 0.67 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 12.22 \(\pm\) 0.65 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 63.50 \(\pm\) 1.53 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.84 \(\pm\) 0.10 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 13.46 \(\pm\) 0.20 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) \\ KA2 & 2.87 \(\pm\) 0.81 \({}^{\text{fg}}\) & 11.23 \(\pm\) 0.96 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 60.27 \(\pm\) 2.05 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.99 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 13.24 \(\pm\) 0.25 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) \\ KA4 & 1.80 \(\pm\) 0.20 \({}^{\text{sh}}\) & 10.69 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 57.62 \(\pm\) 1.31 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 1.08 \(\pm\) 1.32 \({}^{\text{cd}}\) & 13.13 \(\pm\) 0.41 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) \\ KA6 & 1.60 \(\pm\) 0.22 \({}^{\text{h}}\) & 9.79 \(\pm\) 0.17 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 56.11 \(\pm\) 1.30 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 1.21 \(\pm\) 0.10 \({}^{\text{be}}\) & 12.93 \(\pm\) 0.24 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ SP2 & 7.31 \(\pm\) 1.37 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 11.50 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 42.86 \(\pm\) 1.88 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 1.03 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 11.95 \(\pm\) 0.14 \({}^{\text{d}}\) \\ SP4 & 5.22 \(\pm\) 0.61 \({}^{\text{de}}\) & 9.54 \(\pm\) 0.18 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 37.54 \(\pm\) 1.44 \({}^{\text{f}}\) & 1.34 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\text{be}}\) & 10.87 \(\pm\) 0.32 \({}^{\text{d}}\) \\ SP6 & 4.69 \(\pm\) 1.13 \({}^{\text{def}}\) & 7.84 \(\pm\) 0.41 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 33.53 \(\pm\) 0.60 \({}^{\text{s}}\) & 1.61 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 10.82 \(\pm\) 0.44 \({}^{\text{e}}\) \\ CL2 & 5.55 \(\pm\) 0.51 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 11.27 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 45.93 \(\pm\) 0.60 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & -4.17 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{g}}\) & 13.66 \(\pm\) 0.36 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ CL4 & 3.75 \(\pm\) 0.99 \({}^{\text{ef}}\) & 6.51 \(\pm\) 0.33 \({}^{\text{ef}}\) & 39.00 \(\pm\) 1.98 \({}^{\text{f}}\) & -4.15 \(\pm\) 0.22 \({}^{\text{g}}\) & 12.74 \(\pm\) 0.20 \({}^{\text{cd}}\) \\ CL6 & 2.56 \(\pm\) 0.39 \({}^{\text{g}}\) & 6.15 \(\pm\) 0.77 \({}^{\text{f}}\) & 36.72 \(\pm\) 0.94 \({}^{\text{f}}\) & -2.40 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\text{f}}\) & 11.48 \(\pm\) 0.79 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Mean \(\pm\) standard deviation in the same column with different superscript alphabets (\({}^{\text{a}}\)-) indicates there is a significant difference (\(p<0.05\)). KA2, KA4, and KA6: Sausage with added 2, 4, and 6% of _Kapapnycus alvezizi_, SP2, SP4, and SP6: sausage with added 2, 4, and 6% of _Surgassum polycystum_, CL2, CL4, and CL6; sausage with added 2, 4, and 6% of _Caulera lentiliffira_.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Water holding capacity, cooking loss and the colour of the chicken sausage incorporated with seaweed. in the cohesiveness and springiness parameters between the treatments (\(p<0.05\)). The SP-treated sausages had the highest hardness value compared to other samples (\(p<0.05\)). These findings were in agreement with those reported by [33], who noted that sea tangle in pork patties caused an increase in its hardness. The authors of [34] also reported that different types and concentrations of edible seaweed improved the hardness of the emulsion meat system. However, the addition of high concentration of seaweed, notably the SP, adversely affected the hardness and chewiness of the sausages and led to declining sensorial acceptability. These results may be due to higher dietary fiber content in SP which enhanced the water holding capacity in meat, forming a hard and compact structure.