Organic matter level is 2,58% humus.
Total N 0.159 %
NH4 3,5 mg/kg
NO3 9,8 mg/kg
NH4 + NO3 13,3 mg/kg
P2O5 8,6 mg/100g
K2O 25,3 mg/100g

Recommendation from the lab (not organic):
- 10 ton of manure for 10 are (around 1200 sq yards)
- 35 kg N before transplanting, followed by 70 kg for feeding after.
- 62 kg of triple superphosphate. After transplantation, 0,05% liquid fertilizer (10:52:10) as well as 7 days later. Next phase is 0,1% weekly of 20:20:20, then afterwards continue with 16:8:28 or similar.
- 60 kg of K20 (via KCl) along with foliar potash fertilizer.

What should we do? 70 tomatoes are already in the ground. How do we make them happy? And what can we do with the part of the plot that we haven't planted on yet?
Also, is it possible that further down below (since the samples were from 20cm) the soil is a bit better (nutrient-wise)?

We'd like to keep things organic. For this 1st year we'd just like some nice tomatoes. When we finish picking in autumn we will have a clear plot and more time to dedicate ourselves to improving soil quality.

Thanks,
Joe

Make sure there is a dirt bowl, I make mine five inches or so in diam., around each tomato (even if you have to dig them out, make sure they are planted as low as possible nearly covering all but the upper most branches) and pour, with a watering can, the mixture over the plant till it fills that bowl.

For the first dose or two more than doubled the listed dose. (I worked for the horticulture dept. at the Minn. zoo one summer and we heavy dosed for intial fertilisings)

Watch them and fertilize at a set frequecy or as needed.

One year a mail order firm sent me some plants that were all but dead, one was, and after I did this they out grew the tomato cages just like all the healthy ones I planted.

Algoflash is a French product I believe so that should be available there.
He said he just wants tomatoes this year, so this is a one shot deal as he stated.

Water them. Most plants are far more tolerant of soil conditions than you think.

Amend with compost as you acquire it and don't panic until you see how the tomatoes react.

In theory, according to the soil analysis, tomatoes should do poorly in my garden. But the SO spent the afternoon hacking them out with a machete.

Anyways my thoughts on this before i got the results were around what lazygardens said. For a couple of years I've been growing many different varieties of tomato in my own garden, with great success and without ever doing any soil tests. But then i got kind of intimidated by the numbers in recommendation that came with the analysis results. At the moment i think we'll just use some aged manure and compost, then at autumn we'll induce more organic matter into the soil.

Thank you all for sparing your time to check through these results and give your opinions. And sorry if my english has gotten a bit rusty.
Cheers, Joe

Ironite is made from toxic mine tailing containing lead, arsenic and other nasties. Google it.

Adding Phosphorus to the soil prevents mycorrhizal fungi from growing.

Google the words 'mycorrhizal tomatoes' and then buy some commercial tomato inoculation for the soil.

"Gardeners have used Ironite since 1956, and the company has never been sued, fined, cited or linked with any health concerns regarding lead or arsenic.

Several experts and a number of published reference works confirm that the lead and arsenic in Ironite - basically, raw ores of the metals - are in the least toxic forms of those materials."

Here in Minn. the gov. "experts" temp. banned its sale but that went bye-bye as their bs was flushed.

RpR has taken that quote out of context. Here is the very next line after the one quoted by RpR;

"But experts said weather, erosion, local soil and water chemistry and even microbes in the soil can change a fairly safe form to a more toxic one."

As I said, Google 'Ironite Arsenic Lead' and then make up your own mind.

More of the quoted article "...The Dallas Morning News commissioned tests on Ironite and reviewed tests performed by a university geochemist and those provided by the manufacturer.

The test results were consistent: Samples of Ironite in its granular, boxed form contained an average of 2,677 parts per million of lead and 3,972 parts per million of arsenic, in addition to the iron that is the fertilizer's namesake.

Experts disagree on how many years of repeated use it might take to raise soil concentrations enough to be of concern.

In West Dallas and other neighborhoods, the Environmental Protection Agency has launched cleanups of residential yards if soil had more than 500 parts per million of lead or 35 parts per million of arsenic."

Below is the link where you can find the quote buried in a 1998 article.

Here in MO a total lead value of 260 is considered safe for residential yards, and arsenic is in the range of 10. So Ironite is 100x higher in lead and 400x higher in arsenic. Yeah, it would take awhile for it to build up, and the bioavailability thing *might* make a difference, but sheesh. There has to be a better way.

"Recent studies conducted by Paul J. Eberhardt have found: Ironite increased the yield of dry red chili peppers by more than 800 pounds per acre; root length averaged 200 percent longer in Ironite treated pots of perennial ryegrass lawns; Ironite used at low rates (1.5 pounds per 1,000 square feet) increased the root system of sweet corn more than 45 percent. Other crops being tested at this low rate of Ironite include broccoli, tomatoes, cantaloupe, Swiss chard, squash, cotton and common ryegrass.

THE RESULTS (caps mine) of the human health risk assessment, and toxicological and mineralogical tests: Risk assessment studies that followed standard United States Environmental Protection Agency methods show Ironite poses no health concern for gardeners or homeowners. Toxicological tests confirm Ironite is safer than many other common household items if accidentally ingested. Mineralogical tests show metals naturally occurring in Ironite are not available for uptake by plants or humans, therefore, posing no threat to the environment.
As a good corporate citizen, Ironite has taken the right steps to demonstrate its product is safe said Paul D. Bergstrom, risk assessment manager, Knight Piesold and Co., an environmental consulting firm in Denver. According to Bergstrom, who conducted the comprehensive product safety risk assessment of Ironite, the results of the mineralogy study were strongly supported by the results of an acute oral LD 50 toxicity study conducted in rats in accordance with State of Washington and U.S. EPA methods. There were no deaths or toxicity observed in the rats given the highest dose required (5,000 mg of Ironite per kg of body weight) to measure toxicity.
At the conclusion of the study, the rats dosed with Ironite were as healthy as the rats not dosed with Ironite. If metals were truly of concern, we would have seen animal deaths and signs of toxicity said Bergstrom.".

It is amazing that all the sky-is-falling attacks on Ironite SEEM to be eight of more years old, the Dallas Newspaper article is 14 years, and the item just faded away except for people scare mongering with false claims about Ironite from eight or more years ago on the inter-net.

As I said the the self-righteous god wannabes in Minn. tried to get rid of it, but failed and this state would ban farting if they could.

Does not say much for so called experts opinions.

Case in point: One thing about an LD50 test is that it tests acute toxicity. How much of the product did it take to kill 50% of the test animals? Or in this case, apparently, how many were killed at a certain max. dose. It does not test disease other than death that is caused by chronic toxicity. For example, lead poisoning in children that decreases their intelligence usually occurs over a period of time, as does the exposure to dust, paint, contaminated soil or contaminated food.

I'm just making an obervation about how complicated this is.

Now, I'm off to calculate the rate of increase of Pb at the stated application rate.

Anyone is welcome to check my calculations. The same would follow for As, at least on an order of magnitude scale.

In my business I rely on such numbers, and even though something might look scary at the outset, if you crunch the numbers using methods you've already accepted, you have to trust the results.

In this case the questions about acute vs. chronic and the bioavailability of the metals are rendered moot by the very small total concentrations. Just my opinion, YMMV.

2) Drainage. Dig a hole 1 foot square and 1 foot deep and fill that with water. After that water drains away refill the hole with more water and time how long it takes that to drain away. Anything less than 2 hours and your soil drains� too quickly and needs more organic matter to slow that drainage down. Anything over 6 hours and the soil drains too slowly and needs lots of organic matter to speed it up.

3) Tilth. Take a handful of your slightly damp soil and squeeze it tightly. When the pressure is released the soil should hold together in that clump, but when poked with a finger that clump should fall apart.

4) Smell. What does your soil smell like? A pleasant, rich earthy odor? Putrid, offensive, repugnant odor? The more organic matter in your soil the more active the soil bacteria will be and the nicer your soil will smell.

5) Life. How many earthworms per shovel full were there? 5 or more indicates a pretty healthy soil. Fewer than 5, according to the Natural Resources Conservation Service, indicates a soil that is not healthy.

Oh and another thing: i got loads and loads of chopped grass coming in these days - it grows very fast now and i have to mow the lawn every 5-7 days. If i'm to spread it around the plot in autumn, how do i preserve it until then? Bags? Pile on the plot? I don't have any compost containers available at the moment.

@jolj
I meant 5 is in order in my garden, as in i do have 5 or more per shovel full ;)