Plant scientists have used genetic engineering on seeds to produce crop plants that are highly resistant to insect damage. Unfortunately, the seeds themselves are quite expensive, and the plants require more fertilizer and water to grow well than normal ones. Thus, for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer. However, since consumer demand for grains, fruits, and vegetables grown without the use of pesticides continues to rise, the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread.

In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

Can somebody explain why conclusion to this argument is "Thus, for most farmers the savings on pesticides would not compensate for the higher seed costs and the cost of additional fertilizer." and not " the use of genetically engineered seeds of this kind is likely to become widespread." ?

I would assume the later occurs logically after the statement that the farmers will not save money using the new seeds.

Thanks,
Anvesh