## Results and Discussion
### WHC and cooking Loss  
The WHC and cooking-loss characteristics of W-prepared Tetokgalbi are portrayed in Table 5. The WHC of Tetokgalbi tended to escalate as the amount of W increased when compared with the CON group. The CON group had the lowest WHC, whereas the W3 group had the highest WHC (_p_ < 0.05). Phosphate, which is often used as a food additive \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Proximate Composition**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Teactments 1 (Dy Weight Basis)**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **CON** & **REF** & **W1** & **W2** & **W3** \\ \hline Moisture & 68.78 \(\pm\) 0.112  & 67.99 \(\pm\) 0.88  & 67.27 \(\pm\) 0.52  & 66.26 \(\pm\) 2.26  & 65.59 \(\pm\) 0.79  \\ Crude protein & 14.44 \(\pm\) 0.11  & 13.89 \(\pm\) 0.49  & 14.26 \(\pm\) 0.20  & 13.11 \(\pm\) 0.92  & 13.02 \(\pm\) 0.17  \\ Crude fat & 10.87 \(\pm\) 0.59  & 10.53 \(\pm\) 0.18  & 10.35 \(\pm\) 0.34  & 10.16 \(\pm\) 0.56  \\ Crude ash & 1.65 \(\pm\) 0.04  \\ Crubohydrate  & 4.26 \(\pm\) 0.61  & 7.32 \(\pm\) 0.08  & 6.77 \(\pm\) 1.22  & 8.39 \(\pm\) 1.33  & 9.30 \(\pm\) 1.18  \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Proximate composition of watermelon ragbowder. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Fatty Acid**} & **\% of Total Fatty Acids (g/100 g)** \\ \hline Caprotic acid (C6:0) & 0.767 \\ Lauric acid (C12:0) & 0.253 \\ Myristic acid (C14:0) & 1.855 \\ Palmitic acid (C16:0) & 23.753 \\ Palmitic acid (C16:1) & 0.523 \\ Heptadecanoic acid (C17:0) & 0.229 \\ _cis_-10-Heptadecenoic acid (C17:1) & 0.229 \\ Stearic acid (C18:0) & 13.864 \\ Oleic acid (C18:1\(n\)-9c) & 31.992 \\ Linoleialidic acid (C18:2\(n\)-6 ct) & 1.496 \\ Linoleic acid (C18:2\(n\)-6c) & 12.739 \\ \(\alpha\)-Linolenic acid (C18:3\(n\)-3) & 1.908 \\ _cis_-11,14-Eicosatrienoic acid (C20:2) & 0.426 \\ _cis_-4,7,10,13,16,19-Docosahexaenoicenoic acid (C22:6\(n\)-3) & 2.045 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{_n-3 fatty acid_} & 3.953 \\ _n-6_/_n_-3 ratio & 12.739 \\ Total fatty acids & 3.220 \\ Total fatty acids & 92.079 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Fatty acid composition of pork. for manufacturing various processed meat products, can affect the emulsification, texture, color, and abnormal odor of meat products [25]. Using phosphate as a food additive has distinctive advantages and disadvantages; it enhances the product yield by increasing WHC, but leads to excessive deterioration of the meat quality. As excessive phosphate intake may trigger a homeostatic imbalance of other minerals, such as magnesium, calcium, and iron [26; 27], consumers have recently become cautious when consuming phosphate-added meat products [28]. To avoid excess usage of phosphate in processed meat products, a study was conducted to identify alternative natural-ingredient replacements [29; 30]. The results showed that ascorbic acid (a natural antioxidant) had a similar effect as phosphate. In this study, all W groups exhibited higher WHC values than the REF group; therefore, W can potentially be used as a functional food. The cooking loss of the CON group was highest, and the cooking loss gradually decreased as the amount of W in Tteokgalbi increased (\(p<0.05\)). Similarly, seaweed power-treated pork parties also showed decreased cooking loss compared with the control patties [31]. Both seaweed and W contain a considerable amount of fiber; therefore, less cooking loss after W addition may be related to the higher fiber content in W, together with the aforementioned WHC. Cooking loss stems from moisture and fat loss during heating, and heating meat products alters the original protein structure via denaturation and coagulation [32]. Generally, cooking loss increases with slower, higher, and longer heating processes; a lower pH; and an increased surface area and weight of the meat product [5]. Water loss from the meat product occurs when the binding force between water molecules and proteins is weakened and is also affected by the pH of the meat product [33].